Patna High Court
Chunni Praveen and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible; consequently, the conviction based solely on that confession is set aside and the appellants are acquitted.
Summary
The appellants Chunni Praveen and Sayara Bano were convicted for the murder of a six‑year‑old child, Dilkhush, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on a purported confessional statement recorded by the investigating officer, in which the accused admitted to strangling the child and disposing of the body. The High Court examined the admissibility of such a confession and noted that under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC, a confession made to police is inadmissible unless it is proved against the accused in a specific manner. No other direct evidence linked the appellants to the murder, and the trial court had failed to apply the statutory exclusion of police confessions. Consequently, the Court held that the conviction could not stand on the inadmissible confession and set aside the judgment, acquitting the appellants and ordering their release. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a confession made to a police officer is admissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the CrPC.
- Whether a conviction can be sustained on the basis of such an inadmissible confession in the absence of other corroborative evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 162
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 145, 25
Subjects
- murder
- confession
- inadmissible evidence
- IPC 302
- IPC 201
- Section 34
- Indian Evidence Act
- CrPC
- acquittal
- life imprisonment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1102 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2017 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria
======================================================
1. Chunni Praveen, Md. Kamil Resident of Village- Baiju Pattitakiya tola, P.s.-
Bhargama, District-Araria
2. Sayara Bano Md. IIyash, Resident of Village- Chatapur, Rajbara, P.S-
Chatapur, District-Supaul
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate
Mr.Kanhaiya Rao, Advocate
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 30-03-2026
The instant appeal challenges judgement of
conviction and order of sentence dated 20th of July, 2018 and
dated 21st of July, 2018, respectively, passed in Sessions Case
No. 272 of 2017 (Sessions Trial No. 91 of 2017) dated 28 th of
July, 2018, whereby and whereunder the appellants, namely,
Chunni Praveen and Sayara Bano were sentenced to suffer
rigorous life imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 / 34 of the IPC and also to pay fine of Rs.
50,000/- each, in default payment of fine further
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
2/12
imprisonment for one year each. The appellants were also
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each
with fine of Rs. 25,000/- each, in default to pay further
imprisonment for 6 months each for the offence punishable
under Sections 201 / 34 of the IPC. It was directed that the
substantive punishment of rigorous imprisonment shall run
concurrently.
2. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred
the instant appeal.
3. Bhargama P.S. Case No. 84 of 2017 was
registered on 17th of May, 2017 against the appellants under
Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the IPC on the basis of a
statement made by one Mehroon Nisha, wife of Md. Kamil,
stating, inter alia, that she was the mother of one daughter and
a son. The daughter was aged about 6 years. Few days before
the date of lodging complaint, her husband Md. Kamil
contracted second marriage with one Chunni Praveen of
Chatapur, Rajbara in the district of Supaul. Chunni Praveen
had one son and two daughters. A few days after marriage,
Chunni Praveen used to assault the informant and her children
and used to threaten her with dire consequences. Since Chunni
Praveen was a quarrelsome lady, the father-in-law of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
3/12
informant constructed a separate room for the informant
where she used to reside. She used to maintain her family
working as a day labourer. About 15 days before lodging the
FIR, accused Chunni Praveen assaulted the son of the
informant pressing her neck. The son of the informant,
namely, Dilkhush started to cry and the informant somehow
saved his son from the hand of the accused. The dispute
between the informant and accused Chunni Praveen was
mediated by the local villagers. Subsequently, Chunni Praveen
hatched conspiracy to kill the son of the informant Dilkhush.
She attempated to befriend Dilkhush by giving Chocolates,
Sweets etc.,. On 15th of May, 2017 at about 09:00 A.M.,
Chunni Praveen and her mother Sayara Bano came to the
house of the informant and at about 04:00 P.M., they enticed
the son of the informant and took him away inside a Mango
grove situated on the eastern side of the room of the informant
to play. At about 06:00 P.M., Chunni and Sayara came back to
the house of the informant but the son of the informant,
namely, Dilkhush did not return with them. She asked the
accused persons about her son and they replied that they did
not know the whereabout of the son of the informant. Then
she conducted search for her son in the village. During search,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
4/12
one Md. Munna told the informant that he saw Chunni and her
mother coming out of a room generally used to keep straw and
grass to feed the cattle. Md. Munna then asked the appellants
about the missing son of the informant. At this Chunni
Praveen became nervous. On 17th of May, 2017, in the
morning Chunni Praveen and Sayara Bano disclosed that they
committed murder of Dilkhush by strangulation inside the
room for storing cattle feed “ Bhusa Ghar” and threw his dead
body inside the forest. Hearing this informant and others
conducted search in the forest and found the dead body of her
son lying in the forest. There was mark of violence in the
body of Dilkhush. It is alleged that both the appellants
committed murder of Dilkhush and concealed his dead body
to disappear the evidence.
4. On the basis of the said statement made by the
informant, police registered Bhargama P.S. Case No. 84 of
2017 under Sections 302, 201 and 120B and took up the case
for investigation. On completion of investigation, police
submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Sections
302 / 201 / 120B of the IPC.
5. On commitment of the case, the learned Sessions
Judge, Araria transferred the case to the Court of learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
5/12
Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court at Araria for trial and
disposal. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 4th of
August, 2017, framed charge under Sections 302 / 34 and
Section 201 / 34 against both the appellants. As the appellants
pleaded not guilty when the charge so framed was read over
and explained to them, trial of the case commenced.
6. In order to bring home the charge against the
accused persons in the Trial Court, prosecution examined 8
witnesses. P.W. 1 Md. Shafir-ur Rahman and P.W. 2 Md. Mati-
ur Rahman are uncles of the deceased. P.W. 3 Md. Kadish,
P.W. 4 Md. Kausar Alam and P.W. 6 Md. Munna @ Munna
Mustaq are the local villagers. P.W. 5 is the I.O of this case.
P.W. 7 is the informant and P.W. 8 is the Autopshy Surgeon
who conducted P.M. examination over the dead body of
deceased Dilkhush.
7. During trial P.W. 7 Mehroon Khatoon being the
informant stated on oath that she is the first wife of Md.
Kamil. She gave birth to one son and one daughter in the
wedlock with Md. Kamil. Subsequently, her husband married
to another lady Chunni Praveen. It is ascertained from the
evidence of P.W. 7 that on the date of occurrence in the
afternoon, her son Dilkhush was playing in the Mango grove
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
6/12
of one Mukhiya Faiyaz. The children of Chunni Praveen and
Sahana Khatun were also playing. In the evening, the son of
the informant did not come back to her house. The informant
conducted search for him. However, he was missing for two
long days. On the third day, the dead body of Dilkhush was
found lying in the Corn field of Faiyaz Mukhiya. The villagers
suspected the appellants as the assailants of the son of the
informant. Under the pressure of the villagers, Chunni
Praveen confessed that the dead body of the son of the P.W. 7
was lying inside the Corn field of Faiyaz Mukhiya. They also
admitted that she and her mother Sayara Bano committed
murder of said little child inside the cattle feed room and
threw away the dead body in Corn field. The witness
identified the Chunni Praveen as the second wife of her
husband and Sayara Bano as mother of Chunni Praveen. The
informant saw the dead body of her son. According to her, the
son of the informant was murdered by pressing his neck. She
also identified the statement made by her.
8. It is ascertained from the cross-examination of
P.W. 7 that she came to know about commission of murder of
her son on the third day of disappearance at about 08:00 P.M.
from local villagers, namely, Nehal, Jabar and Azim Master.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
7/12
The informant further stated that the above-named three
persons are her neighbors. After recovery of dead body of the
son of the informant, one Nehal informed the incident to
police. Police came to the spot within 45 minutes to 1 hour
and recorded statement of the informant. She put her L.T.I. on
her statement. Thereafter, police prepared inquest over the
dead body and sent it to the local hospital for post-mortem. It
is also ascertained from her cross-examination that the
informant and Chunni Praveen used to reside in separate
rooms in the same building and about 1 year back, there was
some quarrel between them.
9. From the evidence P.W. 1. Md. Shafir-ur
Rahman, it is ascertained that the grand-father of Dilkhush
gifted 5 Khathas of land to him. Over the said issue, Chunni
Praveen was inimical against the informant and her children.
On 15th of May, 2017, at about 4 / 4:30 P.M., Sayara Bano and
Chunni Praveen were in their room. Both of them took
Dilkhush to a Mango grove situated by the side of their house.
Thereafter, Dilkhush did not return home. The mother of
Dilkhush and others conducted vigorous search for her son but
did not find him. On the next morning, the villagers asked the
appellants about the son of the informant. On the third day,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
8/12
they disclosed that the son of the informant was murdered
inside the Bhusa Ghar of one Jalal Mukhiya by strangulation
and the dead body was thrown in the jungle. Local people
informed the matter to police. Police came to the village and
recorded the statement of Mehroon Nisha. P.W. 1 put his
signature as the witness to the L.T.I. of Mehroon Nisha. On
the fardebyan, the signature of P.W. 1 was marked as Exhibit
1. It is found from the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that the
husband of Mehroon Nisha is the uncle’s son of P.W. 1. They
reside in the same house. On the date of occurrence Chunni
Praveen took her three children and Dilkhush to the Mango
grove to play. Subsequently, Chunni Praveen returned with her
children but the son of Mehroon Nisha did not return. On the
third day of disappearance, Chunni Praveen and Sayara Bano
admitted that they committed murder of Dilkhush. Same is the
evidence of Md. Mati-ur Rahman who is also the son of the
uncle of the husband of Mehroon Nisha. The evidence of P.W.
3 Md. Kadish is of no importance because he is not present at
the date of occurrence.
10. From the evidence of P.W. 6 Md. Munna, it is
ascertained that one day about 8 years ago at about 4:30 P.M.
when he was going to his agricultural land he found Chunni
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
9/12
Praveen, Sayara Bano, children of Chunni Praveen and
Dilkhush were playing in the Mango grove of Jalal Mukhiya.
P.W. 6 came back to his house after Sunset and heard that
Dilkhush was missing. He and the other villagers conducted
search for the said child but nobody found him. On the second
day also he remained missing. Then local villagers asked the
appellants about the said child. On being pressurized by local
people, the appellants admitted that they committed murder of
the said child and threw his dead body inside a Corn field. As
per the statement of Chunni Praveen, the villagers went to the
corn field of Jalal Mukhiya and recovered the dead body of
Dilkhush. During cross-examination of P.W. 6, it is found that
his house is situated at a distance of about 2 kilometers away
from the place of occurrence. Police came to the spot after the
recovery of the dead body of the deceased.
11. P.W. 8 Dr. Kanisk Kunal is the Autopsy Surgeon
who held post-mortem examination over the dead body of the
said Dilkhush. According to him the said child died due to
asphyxia caused by manual strangulation with the help of a
ligature, causing dislocation of the cervical bones, and
opening of the thoracic and abdominal cavities
12. Evidence on record clearly suggests that nobody
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
10/12
saw the appellants committing murder of the deceased.
Nobody saw them to take the deceased during his life time to
the cattle feed room “Bhusa Ghar” of Jalal Mukhiya. There is
absolutely no evidence that after strangulation, the appellants
threw the dead body inside the Corn field. It appears from the
exhibit list that purported confessional statement made by the
appellants were marked by the Trial Court as Exhibit 5. The
said confessional statement was the basis of conviction passed
against the accused. Surprisingly, enough that the learned Trial
Judge in the rank of Additional Sessions Judge does not know
that no confession made to a police officer is admissible in
evidence and shall be proved against a person accused of any
offence.
13. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly
states the said provision in unambiguous term.
14. Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. states as follows:-
(1) No statement made by any person to a police
officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter,
shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it;
nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in
a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or
record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
11/12
at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under
investigation at the time when such statement was made;
Provided that when any witness is called for the
prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been
reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if
duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the
permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such
witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such
statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the
re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of
explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply
to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of
section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or to
affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.
15. Thus, a statement made by a person to a police
officer in course of investigation shall not be signed by the
maker of the said statement and such statement cannot be used
in any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under
investigation except for the purpose of contradiction in the
manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1102 of 2018 dt.30-03-2026
12/12
16. Therefore, conviction cannot be based on the
basis of purported statement of the accused persons before the
Investigating Officer. Moreover, the accused persons are not
bound to make any statement before the police on
inducement, threat or undue influence.
17. Learned Trial Court has based the order of
conviction and sentence on the basis of inadmissible evidence.
There is absolutely no evidence against the accused persons /
appellants and they are entitled to be acquitted.
18. Accordingly, the instant appeal be allowed.
19. The judgement of conviction and order of
sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge- III, Araria
dated 20th July, 2018 and 21st July, 2018, respectively, are set
aside.
20. The accused be released at once, if they are in
incarceration and not wanted in any other case.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
( Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
uttam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 17.03.2026
Uploading Date 30.03.2026
Transmission Date 30.03.2026
Checking your session…