Ratnu Yadav vs The State of Chhattisgarh

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

9 July 2024

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 1635 of 2018

Result

Allowed

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal

Citation

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 466 : 2024 INSC 487

Acts & Sections

IPC CrPC Evidence Act

Issue for consideration

Whether the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.302, IPC for committing the murder of his stepmother by relying upon the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1 and ‘last seen together’ evidence of PW5; and the guilt of the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that Appellant assaulted his step-mother; dragged her by holding her hair from her house up to the village pond and suffocated her to death by putting her head inside the pond water – No direct evidence – Conviction by Courts below, relying upon alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1-village officer and ‘last seen together’ evidence of PW5 (deceased’s brother) – If justified:

Held:1. The normal rule of human conduct is that if a person wants to confess to the crime committed by him, he will do so before the person in whom he has implicit faith. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had a close acquaintance with PW-1 for a certain length of time before the incident. Moreover, the version of the witness in examination-in-chief and cross-examination is entirely different. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 is not reliable. Hence, the case of extra-judicial confession cannot be accepted. [Para 10]

2. Between the house of the deceased and the pond, there is a road and ridge of the pond. This means the appellant must have dragged the deceased for a considerable distance. The incident happened in the evening before 7 p.m. There must be many people around the place of the incident. None of them has been examined as a witness. An adverse inference must be drawn against the prosecution for not examining material witnesses. Moreover, in the absence of injuries on the body of the deceased, it is very difficult to accept the testimony of PW-5 that by holding the hair of his mother, the appellant dragged her to the pond. Therefore, evidence of PW-5 of last seen together is not worthy of acceptance. Guilt of appellant not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant is acquitted. [Paras 5, 12, 13 and 14]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Statement under – Departure from – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.145.

Held: Cross-examination of the witness by the public prosecutor shows that the witness was not confronted by showing the relevant part of her statement recorded u/s.161 of CrPC – The witness ought to have been confronted with her prior statement in accordance with s.145 of Evidence Act. [Para 8]

Confession – Extra-judicial Confession – Normal rule of human conduct.

Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. 1. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) for committing the murder of Smt Hemwati Bai, who was his stepmother. Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. FACTUAL ASPECT 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant had a land dispute with the deceased. The allegation against the appellant is that on 2nd March 2013, he assaulted the deceased. Aft

View Subscription Plans →