Unsigned & Unproven Confessional Statement Cannot Be Treated As True: Gauhati HC Acquits Accused In Rape And Murder Case

A jail appeal was preferred assailing the impugned judgment passed by the Additional Deputy Commission in a case arising under Sections 302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC'). The Appellant herein was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Budi Habung observed, “The document which has not been signed or proved by the Magistrate, who is purported to have recorded the said confessional statement cannot be treated as the true confessional statement of the accused under the provisions of section 164 of Cr.P.C. As per 164 (4), the confessional statement of the accused person shall be signed by the person making the confession, but in the present case, the accused has not signed the said confessional statement. Non-compliance with provision of section 164 Cr. P.C has caused injury to the accused in his defence on merit and the same cannot be cured at the later stage. In view of the above, we are not in a position to accept the said document to be a true confessional statement of the accused. As such, the same cannot be relied on for conviction of the accused for murder and rape.”

Advocate Sentiyanger appeared for the Appellant whereas PP K Angami appeared for the Respondent.

The Complainant’s wife went to the field and did not return and after searching, her dead body was found. It was found that she was raped and murdered as her dead body was found naked and blood was oozing out of her private parts.

The Appellant filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1) Under the IPC, it is legally impossible to rape a woman who has already died, therefore, the conviction is bad in law, so far as conviction u/s section 376 IPC is concerned. 2) Necrophilia is not a criminal offence under law and as such the Appellant could not have been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC. 3) The mental unsoundness of the Appellant at the time of the commission of the alleged offence was not considered by the trial court.

The Appellant submitted “That the accused while admitting his guilt has stated before the Magistrate that he was urged by his friend Nekhotuo to kill the deceased. Nekhotuo happened to be there, but vanished immediately from the spot after commission of the offence by the accused. The accused then realized that it was not a real human being but an evil spirit.”

The Court considered the prime question of law whether, in the absence of any other evidence, the Appellant could have been convicted solely based on his so-called admission and unsigned confession.

The Court, while refusing to delve into the ingredients of rape on the dead body, held, “It is submitted that in the present case none of the ingredients of the rape under section 375 IPC is present. Be that as it may, since we are concerned with whether based on the confession and admission of the charged offences, the accused can be convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, we may not require to delve into the ingredients of rape on the deadbody. Similarly, we may also not require to discuss in detail about the cause of death of the deceased, as in any case, if the appeal is dismissed, the discussion on cause of death would be immaterial.”

The Court said that in the present case, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and no circumstantial evidence was made out against the Appellant. “Section 235(2) Cr.P.C provides that if the accused is convicted, the Judge shall hear the accused on the questions of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law. This is a statutory provision without which failure of justice would occasion thereby. However, in the instant case, there is no record of hearing the accused on the quantum of sentences.”, the Court said.

The Court concluded, “For the reasons stated herein above and in view of the fact that the learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment solely basing on the unsigned and unproved confessional statement, we are of the considered view that the finding of the learned trial court is without any substances as it lacks both material and circumstantial evidences to convict the accused for murder and rape. In fact, the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, we are constrained to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.”

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence were quashed and set aside. Hence, the appeal was allowed and the Appellant was released on bail.

Cause Title: Shri Kedukhoyi v. State of Nagaland

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate Sentiyanger

Respondent: PP K Angami

Click here to read/download the Judgment