Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

In a landmark decision, the Gauhati High Court at Kohima addressed a key question “Whether in absence of any other evidence, the accused can be convicted solely based on his so- called admission and unsigned confessional statement?”

The division bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Budi Habung, answering the question, said “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. Furthermore, the court highlighted the absence of critical records, including the original confessional statement, which was only available as an unsigned Xerox copy. The purported confession lacked the required signatures, rendering it inadmissible under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

The court identified the critical issue while hearing a case originating from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Nuvotso of Kotisu village, reporting that on May 17, 2003, his wife, Vesazolu, had gone missing and was later found dead with blood oozing from her private part. It was found that she had been raped and murdered. Despite the trial court’s conviction of the accused, Kedukhoyi, on October 1, 2004, the High Court noted that the investigation had been inadequate from the outset. Essential procedures such as visiting the crime scene, creating a sketch map, recovering incriminating materials, and conducting a post-mortem examination were not performed.

The court said “the contents of the said confessional statement were never proved before the Trial Court. In fact, the said confessional statement itself was not proved. Not only that, even assuming the said document to be a confessional statement recorded by the Magistrate, there is no signature of the accused who gave the confessional statement. Besides, there is also no record showing that the accused was given sufficient time for reflection before recording his confessional statement. There is also no record showing that the accused was properly explained the consequences of making such confessional statement, and if he makes one, the same may be used as evidence against him. There is also no record showing that the accused has not given his confessional statement under threat of the police and that after giving confessional statement he was taken to the judicial custody.”

The court further noted that despite all efforts to recover and trace the complete trial court records, only a few documents could be found, including the FIR, the so-called confessional statement of the accused, and the impugned judgment and order collected from the District Jail authority. “It is an established principle of law that the prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt against the alleged accused. In the instant case although the original records are not available, however, it is discernible from the available records that right from the beginning, the investigation of the case was not properly and adequately done,” the court further remarked.

Additionally, the court highlighted that although a Naga dao (sword) was produced by a villager, there was no examination to verify its origin, nor was it sent for forensic analysis.

“Admittedly, no post-mortem examination was conducted over the dead body of the deceased to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. These are some of the basic requirements in the death case, however, the same were not done and in absence of any other evidence or the prosecution shows sufficient cause for not producing the above, we are unable to be convinced that it was the accused and the accused alone who caused the death of the deceased and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her. The prosecution has to prove its own case beyond all reasonable doubt, however, in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case,” the court said.

The appellant’s legal aid counsel argued that the appellant had served around 21 years in jail without any remission. The application for premature release was rejected because the offence involved was under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The counsel also contended that sexual intercourse committed after death does not constitute rape under Section 376 IPC.

The court acknowledged that the case lacked the essential elements of rape under Section 375 IPC. Since the appeal focused on whether the accused could be convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment based on the unsigned confession and admission, it did not delve into the specific elements of rape on a dead body or the cause of death. The prosecution’s failure to present eyewitnesses or circumstantial evidence, and the lack of effort to verify the accused’s movements on the day of the incident, further weakened the case.

The records also revealed that the accused was not examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, which would have allowed him to explain any evidence against him. Additionally, there was no record of the trial court hearing the accused on the question of sentencing, as required by Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. This omission constitutes a significant procedural lapse.

In light of these findings, the court concluded that the trial court’s conviction and life sentence were based on an unsigned and unproven confessional statement, lacking both material and circumstantial evidence.

The court held “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.”

Thus, the court quashed the trial court’s judgment and order dated October 1, 2004, and ordered the immediate release of the appellant.

 

Cause Title: Kedukhoyi v State of Nagaland [ CRL.A(J)/10/2022]