Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364/34 r/w. s.120B, ss.302/34 r/w. s.120B and s.201 – Gruesome murder – Prosecution case was that on 4.3.2010 a missing report was lodged by PW-2 about missing of his six year old daughter – Eights months later, another child (boy) was found missing from his house and his parents started searching for him – They noticed loud music being played in the house of appellants – When they entered the house, they found freshly dug mound of earth – Appellants who were claiming to be “tantriks” admitted that they killed the boy and buried him to attain “siddhi” – During investigation, A-4 made a statement to the police that few months back, he had kidnapped one small girl on the asking of A-1 and A-2 – The said girl was killed by way of human sacrifice and her body was buried in the compound of the appellants – Recovery of skeletal remains along with her cloths was made – Conviction of appellants and death sentence – High Court affirmed conviction however modified death sentence to life imprisonment – On appeal, held: Medical evidence substantiated the case of prosecution – In addition, parents of the deceased identified the cloths, which the deceased child was wearing on the date of missing – They also found the cloth pieces, attached to skeletal remains – The colour of cloth pieces tallied with the description in the missing report lodged by PW-2 earlier on 4.3.2010 – It was also proved that the body of boy was found in the house of appellant-A-1 – By applying s.106 of the Evidence Act, the onus was on the accused to explain the fact within their knowledge as to how the body of boy came to be buried in their house – Apart from the recoveries, there was a strong and consistent evidence of independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused – It was also proved that the house belonged to the appellants where skeletal remains were removed – As such it was clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellants were responsible for the offence alleged against them – Further, as there was no acceptable evidence on record except the alleged confession to prove the offence under ss.364/34 r/w 120B, the appellants are acquitted of said offences – At the same time, by burying the dead body of the deceased caused disappearance of evidence of offence, appellants are rightly convicted for offence under s.201 – Considering the gruesome nature of murder the sentence imposed by the High Court is confirmed.
Evidence: Confession made to police – The confessional statements made to the police cannot be the basis to prove the guilt of the appellants but at the same time there is no reason to discard the confessions made to the independent witnesses at the time when boy’s body was found, prior to the arrival of police – Extra judicial confession, is a weak piece of evidence but at the same time if the same is corroborated by other evidences on record, such confession can be taken into consideration to prove the guilt of the accused – Penal Code, 1860.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It is proved by cogent evidence that the body of boy was found in the house of appellant-A-1. By applying the provision under Section 106 of the Evidence Act definitely it is the burden of the accused to explain the fact within the knowledge of them how the body of boy came to be buried in their house. Apart from the recoveries, there was a strong and consistent evidence of independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. The FSL Report conclusively established that PW-3 was the biological relative of the deceased. The said evidence if considered along with other oral evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the skeletal remains of the body removed from the house of the appellants was only that of their daughter. The house belonged to the appellants where skeletal remains were removed. Further, as there was no acceptable evidence on record except the alleged confession to prove the offence under Sections 364/34 read with 120B IPC, the appellants are entitled for acquittal for offences punishable under Sections 364/34 and 120B IPC. At the same time, by burying the dead body of the deceased caused disappearance of evidence of offence, they are rightly convicted for offence under Section
201 IPC. Having regard to gruesome nature of murder, the trial court has imposed the punishment of death for offence under Sections 302/34 read with 120B IPC but on appeal the High Court has modified the sentence to that of imprisonment for life without any remission or parole. Considering the gruesome nature of murder the sentence imposed by the High Court is to be confirmed. [Paras 24-27][922-C-D, F-H; 923-A-C] Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 SC 119 : [1966] SCR 134; Ronny v. State of Maharashtra (1998)
3 SCC 625 : [1998] 2 SCR 162; Firozuddin
Basheeruddin & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2001) 7 SCC 596; Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand (2004) 2 SCC
338 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 702 – referred to.
Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer [1956] SCR 199; State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC
755 : [2007] 3 SCR 507; Prakash vs. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 133; Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403 : [2012] 4 SCR 366 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.