The Jharkhand High Court clarified that confessional statements to police and uncorroborated witness statements under Section 164 CrPC cannot form the sole basis for conviction. The Court set aside convictions imposed under these evidentiary defects, reaffirming the established law. This ruling is binding on Jharkhand subordinate courts and strong persuasive authority elsewhere, especially in prosecutions relying on similar evidentiary bases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Cr.A(DB)/272/2003 of BELAL KURAISHI Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010148812003 |
| Date of Registration | 21-02-2003 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava (for the Bench) |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Division Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Jharkhand; strong persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms the prevailing legal requirement regarding admissibility of evidence (Section 25 Evidence Act, Section 164 CrPC) |
| Type of Law | Criminal procedure / Evidence law |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of confessional statements made to police and statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164 CrPC, untested in court. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that a confessional statement made to police is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be the basis for conviction unless something incriminating is discovered pursuant to it, connecting the accused with the crime. As for witnesses’ statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, these are not substantive evidence but have only corroborative value; a conviction cannot be based solely on such statements unless the maker is examined before the court and subject to cross-examination. In the present case, the conviction was based only on the accused’s confession to police and Section 164 statements of witnesses who were either not examined or declared hostile. The High Court found these evidentiary bases to be legally inadmissible, and set aside the conviction. The judgment reaffirms settled principles of evidence law regarding the limitations and requisites for admissibility. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court referred to the prohibition on using police confessions as substantive evidence and the limitations under Section 164 CrPC, which requires that witness statements thereto are corroborative at best and only gain direct evidentiary value if the witness is examined in court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The prosecution case arose from discovery of two dead bodies with signs of homicidal violence, and allegations of murder and rape. FIR was registered for offences under IPC Sections 302/201, later extended to include 376. The trial was founded on confessions to police by accused, and witness statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. However, those statements were not tested by cross-examination or were made by witnesses later declared hostile. The trial court convicted the appellants. The High Court on appeal found the conviction unsustainable in law due to inadmissibility of core evidence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (esp. when similar evidentiary propositions arise) |
| Overrules | None explicitly overruled; affirms settled law |
| Distinguishes | Distinguishes convictions based solely on inadmissible evidence from those backed by direct or circumstantial substantive evidence |
| Follows | Established legal principles regarding inadmissibility of police confessions and limitation of Section 164 CrPC statements |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that police confessional statements, unless leading to a discovery of material fact directly linked to the accused, cannot support conviction.
- Section 164 CrPC witness statements are not substantive evidence unless the witness is examined as a prosecution witness and cross-examined; mere production of the statement in court does not suffice.
- Hostile witnesses or non-examined witnesses under Section 164 CrPC cannot be relied on for conviction.
- Lawyers should rigorously test whether the conviction rests on such inadmissible evidence, and cite this decision where prosecution evidence is similarly defective.
- The judgment highlights prosecutorial and investigative lapses where physical evidence is not sent for forensic examination or material evidence is not produced in court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court observed that the learned trial court convicted the appellants solely on confessional statements made by the accused to police and Section 164 CrPC statements of witnesses who were either not examined during trial or declared hostile.
- The Court reasoned that confessional statements made to police are inadmissible in evidence by virtue of law, unless they lead to relevant discovery (as per established legal principles).
- Statements made under Section 164 CrPC, unless the witness is examined and cross-examined in court, possess only corroborative, not substantive, evidentiary value, and conviction cannot rest solely on such statements.
- The Court found that, with the exclusion of these inadmissible evidences, there was no other direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the commission of offences under Sections 302, 201, and 376 IPC.
- Therefore, the conviction could not be sustained and was set aside.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The trial court erred in basing conviction on legally inadmissible evidence, namely police confessions and Section 164 CrPC statements.
- There was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.
- Witnesses whose statements were relied on were not examined, or were declared hostile, depriving the defence of an opportunity for cross-examination.
- No incriminating article was discovered on the basis of the confessional statements, nor was any material exhibit directly linking the appellants adduced.
Respondent (State):
- The trial court thoroughly appreciated incriminating circumstances.
- The prosecution case was sufficiently established by the available materials and the conviction deserved to stand.
Factual Background
The case stemmed from the discovery of two dead bodies, both exhibiting signs of homicidal death and physical restraint, found in a field and a nearby well in Lohardaga district on 29.09.1990. FIR was registered against unknown persons under Sections 302/201 IPC, later expanded to 452 and 376/34 IPC following investigation. The prosecution’s evidence consisted primarily of confessional statements from the accused recorded by police and witness statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC, but those witnesses were either not examined at trial or were declared hostile. The trial court convicted the appellants. On appeal, these convictions were challenged as contrary to evidence law.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 302, 201, 376 IPC: Substantive offences charged.
- Section 164 CrPC: Court examined at length the evidentiary value; held statements thereunder are not substantive unless the maker is examined and cross-examined in trial.
- Section 25, Indian Evidence Act: Confessional statements made to police are inadmissible, unless leading to discovery under Section 27.
- The Court took a strict view regarding the statutory framework governing admissibility of both types of evidence involved.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were delivered; the judgment was unanimous by both Justices.
Procedural Innovations
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reaffirms and strictly applies extant principles regarding the inadmissibility of police confessions and the limited evidentiary value of Section 164 CrPC statements not tested in trial.