The Jharkhand High Court has acquitted Nandlal Yadav, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, ruling that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) cannot be the sole basis for a conviction. A division bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Rajesh Kumar held that such statements are not substantive evidence and require corroboration, and that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appeal was filed against a 1998 judgment by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Godda, which had convicted Mr. Yadav for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case began with a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged by Champa Devi (P.W. 2), the wife of the deceased, on May 4, 1996. She reported that on the previous day, her she-goat went missing. When her husband returned from his labour work in the evening, he went to search for it. He returned at 8:00 PM and stated that Jhupara @ Gopal Ram, Mahabir Ram, and Shankar Ram had killed the goat. After his meal, he went to Jhupara’s house to demand money for the killed goat but did not return that night.
The informant stated that due to a Kirtan (prayer ceremony) and a marriage in the village, she thought her husband might have gone to attend those functions. The next morning, her son discovered the deceased’s body, bearing several injuries, near Jhupara’s new house. Following an investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet, and the trial court framed charges. The trial court convicted Nandlal Yadav but acquitted the other accused persons, namely Jhupara @ Gopal Ram, Shankar Ram, Mahabir Ram, Manilal Yadav, and Deepnarayan @ Bibha Ram.
Arguments Before the High Court
Appearing for the appellant Nandlal Yadav, Advocate Mrs. Priyanka Boby argued that the conviction was based on “surmises and conjectures” as there were no eyewitnesses to the incident. She contended that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, but the prosecution had failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. It was further submitted that the trial court’s conviction was primarily based on a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where a witness (P.W. 7, Sunil Mandal) claimed to have last seen the deceased with the appellant, a point the witness later turned hostile on during the trial.
Representing the State, Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey defended the trial court’s verdict. He argued that the testimonies of the witnesses, taken in their totality, clearly indicated the appellant’s involvement in the murder and that the prosecution had successfully proven his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court division bench formulated key questions for its determination, primarily focusing on whether the prosecution had proved the appellant’s guilt and whether a conviction could be sustained solely on a statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
The Court observed that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and the “last seen” theory. It noted that P.W. 7, Sunil Mandal, who had allegedly seen the deceased with the appellant, became hostile during the trial and denied making key statements to the police. Although he admitted to giving a statement before a Magistrate, he claimed he was assaulted by the Investigating Officer.
The bench embarked on a detailed analysis of the evidentiary value of a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Court stated, “While a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is admissible in court, it is primarily used to evaluate the credibility of the witness who made the statement. Such statement can be used to support or discredit the witness’s testimony in court, but it cannot be the sole basis of conviction.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala, the High Court reiterated that such statements “cannot be treated as substantive evidence” because the defence has no opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the time of its recording.
The Court further found that the “last seen” theory was not established. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Navaneethakrishnan v. State
(2018)16SCC161, which held that while the last seen theory is an important link, “this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration.”
On the standard for circumstantial evidence, the Court cited Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan
(1976)1SCC621, emphasizing that the circumstances must form a chain “so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else.”
Applying the principle of ‘benefit of doubt’, the bench cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984)4SCC116, which established that where two views are possible from the evidence, “the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”
Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench stated, “The circumstances of this case only create suspicion against the present appellant and suspicion, by itself, however strong it may be, is not sufficient to take the place of proof and warrant a finding of guilt of the accused.”
In its final order dated July 16, 2025, the Court quashed and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. The appeal was allowed, and Nandlal Yadav was acquitted of all charges and discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
