In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted six men previously convicted of a double homicide and robbery that occurred in 2015, citing the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers and the failure of the prosecution to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The case involved the brutal murder of trailer driver Bodhan Prasad and his helper Nilesh Kumar, whose bodies were discovered in a forest in Surajpur district. The accused, including Nazir Khan (29), Om Prakash Jaat (50), Patul @ Abdul Majid (30), Deepak Lohar (32), Surendra Lohar (40), and Vijay Kumar Jatt (27), were convicted by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in January 2018, and sentenced to life imprisonment under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder, robbery, and causing the disappearance of evidence.
Background of the Case:
On the night of September 26-27, 2015, the victims were resting in their trailer after unloading coal. According to the prosecution, the accused ambushed the victims, abducted them to a forested area, and strangled them to death before stealing the trailer, which was later sold in Haryana.
The bodies were discovered on September 30, 2015, in an advanced state of decay. The police initially registered a case based on a missing person’s report and later charged the accused following their arrests. The trial court convicted the accused largely based on their confessions made to the police and circumstantial evidence.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Inadmissibility of Confessions to Police Officers: One of the central issues in the case was the reliance of the trial court on confessions made by the accused to the police. The defense argued that these confessions were inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits the use of confessions made to police officers as evidence in court.
2. Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the stolen trailer and other materials linked to the crime. However, the defense contended that the chain of evidence was incomplete and insufficient to support a conviction.
3. Weak Memorandum Statements: The defense also argued that the prosecution’s case relied heavily on the memorandum statements of the accused, which were obtained under police custody. These statements led to the recovery of certain items, but the defense maintained that this evidence did not directly connect the accused to the murders.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, while delivering the judgment, emphasized that the confessions made to police officers could not be used as evidence against the accused. The court referred to Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which clearly states that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible:
“No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offense.”
The court also found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The High Court noted that when a case relies entirely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and leave no room for doubt. In this case, the court found that several critical links in the chain were missing. The court observed:
“For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the facts established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt and must exclude any other reasonable hypothesis.”
The court further ruled that the memorandum statements made by the accused while in police custody, leading to the recovery of certain items, were not sufficiently corroborated by independent evidence. As a result, the court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Verdict:
The High Court acquitted all six accused — Nazir Khan, Om Prakash Jaat, Patul @ Abdul Majid, Deepak Lohar, Surendra Lohar, and Vijay Kumar Jatt — of all charges, including murder, robbery, and causing the disappearance of evidence. The court ordered that Nazir Khan, who was in jail, be released immediately, and the bail bonds of the other accused be cancelled.
Legal Representation:
– For the Appellants: Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, and Mr. Maneesh Sharma
– For the Respondent (State of Chhattisgarh): Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
