Gauhati High Court: In the criminal appeal filed by the appellants convicted under Sections 302/34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) based on their confessional statements recorded under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the Division Bench of Michael Zothankhuma* and Sanjeev Kumar Sharma JJ., observed that the alleged confessions of the appellants had been made in the presence of a police officer. Thus, the Court held that that the said confessions cannot be said to be voluntary and as such, cannot be relied as substantive admissible evidence. Thus, the Court set aside the appellants’ conviction directed the appellants to be released from judicial custody.
Background
On 19 January 2018, the Sessions Judge convicted Appellants 2, 3 and 4 under Sections 302/34 IPC, on the charge of having killed 1 person. The conviction was based solely on the confession statements of the appellants recorded under Section 164 CrPC and on alleged extra-judicial confessions of the deceased’s sons.
Appellant 4 had not made any confessional statement but was convicted based on the confessional statements of Appellants 2 and 3, which named him as a co-perpetrator. During the pendency of the appeal, Appellant 1 was found to be a juvenile and accordingly was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board vide order dated 11 December 2019.
The appellants challenged the conviction on the ground that the confessional statements had not been properly recorded as per Section 164 CrPC, and that in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence, the conviction could not be sustained. Against this background, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis
The Court observed that the alleged confessions of the appellants had been made in the presence of a police officer, in the room where the confessions were being recorded. Thus, the Court held that that the said confessions cannot be said to be voluntary and as such, cannot be relied as substantive admissible evidence, for coming to a verdict of guilt against the appellants. The Court relied on Rabindra Kumar Pal v. Republic of India, (2011) 2 SCC 490 and Khagen Buragohain v. State of Assam, (2014) 4 GLR 277, and reiterated that Section 164 CrPC must be complied with not only in form but in essence.
On examination of the extra-judicial confessions, relying on Kusal Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 13 SCC 676, and State of Punjab v. Kewal Krishan, (2023) 13 SCC 695, the Court noted that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and cannot sustain a conviction in the absence of independent, reliable corroboration.
Regarding Appellant 4’s conviction, tThe Court noted that the confession of a co-accused can only lend assurance to other evidence against the implicated accused and cannot itself be the primary basis for conviction when no such other evidence exists.
Decision
The Court set aside the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC, finding it unsustainable in the absence of any evidence beyond the defective confessional statements and uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions. The appellants were directed to be released from judicial custody immediately, provided they are not wanted in any other case. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
[Jiten Engti v. State of Assam, Crl.A./74/2018, decided on 25-5-2026]
Judgement authored by: Justice Michael Zothankhuma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for the appellant Nos.1 & 4: T. Kalita, Adv.
Advocate for the appellant Nos.2 & 3: G. Rahul, Adv.
Advocate for the respondents: B. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv. & Addl. P.P., Assam,
