1 2025:CGHC:59036-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 667 of 2015 {Arising out of judgment dated 12.05.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.33/2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha} Ramesh Sahu, S/o. Khel Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village- Motimpur, Ghapela, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, Revenue And Civil District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (05.12.2025) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.12.06 11:00:51 +0530 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 12.05.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Trial No.33/2014, by which the sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as under : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s. 302 of I.P.C. : Life imprisonment. U/s.201 of I.P.C. : Imprisonment for 7 years. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 24.04.2014 at village Motiyari Khar, the appellant strangulated his wife Anita Sahu (now deceased) and hanged her on the Babul tree; thereby, the aforesaid offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-5, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-16, Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P-7, deceased was identified by PW-4 vide Ex.P-3A, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-9 and dead body of deceased Anita Sahu was subjected 3 to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. S.K.Bagh (PW- 13), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-19, according to which, cause of death was due to manual strangulation on neck, ligature mark was present on the neck and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement Ex.P-10, one bag containing Pair-patti, Biscuit, Razor, Comb, Handkerchief etc. was seized, but the same has not been identified by any of the witnesses. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited the document. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as 4 mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the extra judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence as it was made before the police officer, the theory of last seen together has not been established and the seized articles have not been identified by any of the witnesses; therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Anita Sahu was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the 5 post-mortem report (Ex.P-19) proved by Dr. S.K.Bagh (PW- 13), according to which, cause of death was due to manual strangulation on neck, ligature mark was present on the neck and death was homicidal in nature, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 9. The first piece of evidence is extra judicial confession allegedly given by appellant to Vishal (PW-4), who is brother of the deceased. However, the extra judicial confession was made before the police officer, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence by virtue of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the Court to base a conviction on such a confession. In 6 such circumstances, the Court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. [See : Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu1]. 10. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered the earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab2 and pertinently laid down the principle in paragraphs 15.1, 15.8 and 16 as under :- “15.1. In Balwinder Singh (supra) this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10) “10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.” 15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambigous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra- judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to 1 (2012) 6 SCC 403 2 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 7 support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.3 and Pancho v. State of Haryana4.) The principles 16. Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These percepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused : (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.” 11. The principle of law laid down in Sahadevan (supra) has further been followed with approval in the matter of Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh5 and very recently in the 3 (2011) 11 SCC 754 4 (2011) 10 SCC 165 5 Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018, judgment dated 16/03/2023 8 matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar6, the following principle of law has been laid down by their Lordships in paragraph 5 of the report :- “EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION 5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. ” 12. The next piece of evidence is theory of last seen together. However, in this regard, the statement of father of deceased Babulal (PW-10) may be noticed herein, in which, he has stated that prior to 24.04.2014 i.e. the date fixed before the family Court, Kawardha, the appellant came into his house, but on 24.04.2014, his daughter (deceased) has gone to the 6 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197 9 family Court, Kawardha, separately, firstly by Cycle upto Chilhati and thereafter by Bus from Chilhati to Kawardha. However, he did not say that the appellant had taken the deceased along-with him on 24.04.2014. Apart from this, though Vishal (PW-4) has stated that the appellant and deceased both have attended the family Court, but there is no evidence that the appellant had taken the deceased along- with him from the family Court after attending the court proceedings except the memorandum statement of the appellant that he has taken the deceased along-with him after court proceedings and caused her death. The said statement is inadmissible in evidence in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka7, in which, it has clearly been held that the statement of an accused recorded by a police officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is basically a memorandum of confession of the accused recorded by the investigating officer during interrogation which has been taken down in writing. The confessional part of such statement is inadmissible and only the part which distinctly leads to discovery of fact is admissible in evidence as laid down by Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Deoman Upadhyaya8. As such, the 7 (2024) 8 SCC 149 8 1960 SCC OnLine SC 8: AIR 1960 SC 1125 10 confessional statement made by the accused in the memorandum statement is inadmissible except for the recovery. 13. The last piece of evidence is that pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, one bag containing Pair-patti, Biscuit, Razor, Comb & Handkerchief have been recovered, but they have not been identified by any of the witnesses, neither brother of deceased Vishal (PW-4) nor father of deceased Babulal (PW-10) and, therefore, the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and, as such, he is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.05.2015 is hereby set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant stands acquitted giving him benefit of doubt from the charge framed against him for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. The appellant is already on bail, he need not surrender; however, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 11 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Ashok