The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a significant ruling, has emphasized that a confession made by one accused cannot be used as the sole basis for convicting co-accused individuals unless corroborated by independent evidence. The judgment, delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, set aside the convictions of four co-accused in a brutal quadruple murder case that took place in Kishanpur village, Mahasamund district, Chhattisgarh.
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the murder of four family members – nurse Yogmaya Sahu, her husband Chetan Sahu, their son Tanmay Sahu, and another child, Kunal Sahu – inside their government residence at the Sub-Health Center in Kishanpur on the night of May 31, 2018. The prosecution alleged that the accused individuals broke into the victims’ home with the intent of theft and sexual assault, resulting in the gruesome murder of all four.
The initial investigation led to the arrest of Dharmendra Bariha (A1), who allegedly confessed to committing the crime. However, a Narco Analysis Test conducted later implicated four more individuals: Suresh Khunte (A2), Gaurishankar Kaivartya (A3), Fulsingh Yadav (A4), and Akhandal Pradhan (A5). Based on Bariha’s confession and subsequent recoveries, all five were convicted by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Sessions Trial No. 40/2018 under Sections 302, 396, 460, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The High Court was called upon to examine the legality and sufficiency of evidence used in convicting the accused, particularly the reliance on confessions and circumstantial evidence.
1. Confession of One Accused is Not Admissible Against Another
The court held that the trial court erroneously relied on the Narco Analysis Test Report (Ex.P-92) of Dharmendra Bariha to convict the other four accused. Referring to the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116, the bench reiterated that the confession of an accused under Narco Analysis is not admissible evidence unless supported by independent corroborative evidence.
2. Chain of Circumstantial Evidence Not Established
The High Court observed that the circumstantial evidence failed to conclusively prove the involvement of the co-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized:
“It is settled law that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
The court noted that while articles recovered at the instance of the accused were sent for forensic examination, the FSL report (Ex.P-104) did not conclusively establish their involvement.
3. DNA Evidence and Witness Testimony Lacked Credibility
The prosecution presented a DNA report (Ex.P-103) to link Suresh Khunte to the crime scene, but the court found serious procedural lapses in how the samples were collected, stored, and tested.
Additionally, two key witnesses, Jagdish Bhoi (PW-11) and Pramod Kumar (PW-12), who were cited for corroborating the prosecution’s case, failed to support the prosecution’s claims during cross-examination.
4. Narco Analysis Test Lacks Evidentiary Value
The court heavily criticized the trial court for basing the convictions of A2-A5 solely on the Narco Analysis Test, which is legally inadmissible as substantive evidence under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court cited Salvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that statements made during Narco Analysis Tests are merely “statements” and not confessions.
Court’s Verdict
After carefully reviewing the evidence, the High Court upheld the conviction of Dharmendra Bariha (A1) but acquitted the other four co-accused due to lack of corroborative evidence. The court held:
“The prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of evidence against the co-accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The reliance on the confession of one accused without independent corroboration is impermissible under law.”
The conviction and life sentences of Suresh Khunte, Gaurishankar Kaivartya, Fulsingh Yadav, and Akhandal Pradhan were thereby set aside, while Dharmendra Bariha’s conviction and sentence were upheld.
