The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that an extra-judicial confession, when made to a responsible and independent person and corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence, can form the sole basis for a conviction under Section 302 IPC, even in the absence of direct eyewitnesses or recovery of the weapon. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that the quality and reliability of circumstantial evidence, not its quantity, determine the validity of a murder conviction.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
On 25.09.2017, Surajbhan Singh was allegedly assaulted and killed by appellants Jaylal Singh and Guljhar Singh following a land dispute. The accused reportedly strangled him with a gamchha and struck him with a jarkatti (iron rod), then disposed of his body in a well near a crusher plant. The next morning, the appellants voluntarily disclosed the crime to Sarpanch Lakhan Singh (PW-1), who immediately informed the police.
Procedural History
- 26.09.2017: FIR registered under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC; body recovered from well with panchnama (Exhibit P-3)
- 26.09.2017: Postmortem conducted by Dr. O.L. Barman (PW-9); report (Exhibit P-23) concluded homicidal death
- 26.09.2017: Memorandum statements recorded under Section 27 Evidence Act; blood-stained clothes and iron rod seized (Exhibits P-10, P-11)
- 31.01.2022: Trial Court convicted appellants under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC; sentenced to life imprisonment and 2 years rigorous imprisonment respectively
- 2022: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. challenging conviction on grounds of inadmissible confession and lack of direct evidence
Relief Sought
The appellants sought acquittal or, alternatively, reduction of conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC, arguing that the confession was inadmissible, self-defense was ignored, and no weapon was recovered from them.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an extra-judicial confession made to a village sarpanch, unsupported by direct eyewitnesses or recovery of the weapon, can sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC when corroborated by forensic evidence, recovery of incriminating articles, and post-occurrence conduct.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the confession to Sarpanch Lakhan Singh was inadmissible as it was not recorded before a magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He contended that the absence of the weapon, lack of medical evidence of injuries on the appellants, and no eyewitness to the actual assault rendered the prosecution case speculative. He relied on Pramila v. State of Chhattisgarh to argue that the nature of injuries suggested a sudden fight, warranting reduction to culpable homicide.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the confession was voluntary, made to a responsible public figure with no motive to falsely implicate, and was corroborated by multiple independent circumstances: prompt filing of Dehati Nalishi and Merg Intimation, recovery of blood-stained clothing and iron rod under Section 27 Evidence Act, forensic confirmation of human blood matching the deceased’s group, and the deliberate disposal of the body. The postmortem report conclusively established intentional, brutal assault inconsistent with self-defense.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the circumstantial chain, emphasizing that Section 302 IPC convictions do not require direct evidence if the circumstantial evidence is complete, consistent, and excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
"The extra-judicial confession made by the appellants before Lakhan Singh (PW-1), a responsible public representative with no animus against the accused, stands corroborated by prompt lodging of the Dehati Nalishi and Dehati Merg, recoveries effected pursuant to the memorandum statements, forensic evidence indicating presence of human blood on the seized articles, and the manner in which the dead body was disposed of."
The Court held that the extra-judicial confession was not merely hearsay but a critical link in the chain, as it was made spontaneously to a neutral third party and immediately followed by official documentation. The Dehati Nalishi and Merg Intimation, recorded within hours of the disclosure, were deemed contemporaneous and reliable, negating claims of fabrication.
The recovery of blood-stained clothing and the iron rod under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was pivotal. The Court noted that such recoveries, when made at the instance of the accused and corroborated by forensic reports, constitute strong incriminating evidence. The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed human blood on the seized items, matching the deceased’s blood group.
The Court rejected the defense of self-defense as wholly unsubstantiated. No medical evidence showed injuries on the appellants, while the postmortem revealed multiple severe injuries on vital organs, indicating a sustained, deliberate assault. The disposal of the body was held to be a classic sign of guilty conscience, inconsistent with sudden provocation.
The Court distinguished Pramila (supra), noting that case involved credible evidence of provocation and absence of premeditation - factors entirely absent here. The sequence of events - strangulation followed by repeated blunt force trauma - clearly satisfied the requirements of clauses (1) and (3) of Section 300 IPC.
The Verdict
The appellants lost. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 201/34 IPC, affirming that an extra-judicial confession, when corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence including forensic findings and post-occurrence conduct, can form the basis of a murder conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Extra-Judicial Confessions Are Admissible When Corroborated
- Practitioners must now argue that the credibility of an extra-judicial confession depends on the character of the confessor and prompt corroboration
- A confession to a sarpanch, panchayat member, or community elder may be admissible if made voluntarily and supported by contemporaneous documentation
- The absence of a magistrate’s record does not automatically render the confession inadmissible under Section 27 Evidence Act
Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain
- Each circumstance must be firmly established and logically connected to the accused
- Forensic evidence, recovery memos, and post-occurrence conduct (e.g., body disposal) are critical to completing the chain
- Absence of a weapon is not fatal if blood-stained clothing, DNA, or other physical evidence links the accused
Self-Defense Claims Require Medical Corroboration
- A plea of self-defense without medical evidence of injuries on the accused will be dismissed
- The nature, location, and multiplicity of injuries on the victim must be analyzed to determine intent
- Courts will not accept bald denials under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as substitutes for affirmative defense evidence
