Jharkhand HC Sets Aside Man’s Double-Murder Conviction After Parents Who Allegedly Told Others He Killed Couple Were Not Examined

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellant’s conviction under Sections 449 and 302 IPC could be sustained on the circumstantial evidence and alleged extra-judicial confession

The court held

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant’s convictions under Sections 449 and 302 IPC and the corresponding sentences

It also directed

It directed that the appellant be released forthwith unless required in another case

01Facts

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega, under Sections 449 and 302 IPC for the murders of Sudhir Dang and Basanti Dang, and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment, respectively

p. 1

The FIR was lodged by the deceased’s uncle after he and others found the couple dead in their home; it named no assailant, and there was no eyewitness to the murders

pp. 1–2, 4

The prosecution relied on statements that the appellant’s parents had attributed the murders to him, an alleged confession before co-villagers, and material said to have been recovered from the appellant’s house

pp. 3–4

The High Court heard the appellant’s appeal against conviction and sentence

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellant’s conviction under Sections 449 and 302 IPC could be sustained on the circumstantial evidence and alleged extra-judicial confession

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether the prosecution evidence, including the unexamined statements of the appellant’s parents and the evidence concerning seized articles, sufficiently corroborated the alleged confession to support the conviction

pp. 3–5

03Law Applied

The Court considered Sections 449 and 302 IPC, under which the appellant had been convicted

p. 1, 5

It applied the principle that an extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence and that a conviction based on it requires the confession to inspire confidence and be corroborated by other prosecution evidence; material discrepancies, inherent improbabilities, or lack of cogency may make it unsafe to rely on

p. 4 · ¶ 18

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 449 Section 302

04Reasoning

The Court found that the prosecution case was circumstantial and that no witness had seen the murders

p. 2, 4

The alleged attribution by the appellant’s parents was recounted by other witnesses, but the parents—and the Mukhiya, before whom the parents allegedly repeated the accusation—were not examined

p. 4

Although PW-4 referred to a confession before co-villagers, the Court found no sufficient corroborative evidence to establish the appellant’s guilt.

p. 4

The evidence concerning the seized articles also did not cure that deficiency: PW-8 testified that the materials sent for FSL examination bore no signature of a police officer or witness

p. 2, 4

Applying the rule on extra-judicial confessions, the Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions.

p. 4