RATNU YADAVversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

                  [2024] 7 S.C.R. 466 : 2024 INSC 487

                              Ratnu Yadav
                                    v.
                        The State of Chhattisgarh
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1635 of 2018)
                                  09 July 2024
               [Abhay S. Oka* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the Courts below erred in convicting appellant u/s.302,
       IPC for committing the murder of his stepmother by relying upon
       the alleged extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1 and
       ‘last seen together’ evidence of PW5; and the guilt of the appellant
       was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Prosecution case that Appellant
       assaulted his step-mother; dragged her by holding her hair
       from her house up to the village pond and suffocated her to
       death by putting her head inside the pond water – No direct
       evidence – Conviction by Courts below, relying upon alleged
       extra-judicial confession of appellant before PW1-village
       officer and ‘last seen together’ evidence of PW5 (deceased’s
       brother) – If justified:
       Held:1. The normal rule of human conduct is that if a person wants
       to confess to the crime committed by him, he will do so before
       the person in whom he has implicit faith. It is not the case of the
       prosecution that the appellant had a close acquaintance with PW-1
       for a certain length of time before the incident. Moreover, the version
       of the witness in examination-in-chief and cross-examination is
       entirely different. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 is not reliable.
       Hence, the case of extra-judicial confession cannot be accepted.
       [Para 10]
       2. Between the house of the deceased and the pond, there is a
       road and ridge of the pond. This means the appellant must have
       dragged the deceased for a considerable distance. The incident
       happened in the evening before 7 p.m. There must be many people
       around the place of the incident. None of them has been examined
       as a witness. An adverse inference must be drawn against the
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                             467

                Ratnu Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh


     prosecution for not examining material witnesses. Moreover, in the
     absence of injuries on the body of the deceased, it is very difficult
     to accept the testimony of PW-5 that by holding the hair of his
     mother, the appellant dragged her to the pond. Therefore, evidence
     of PW-5 of last seen together is not worthy of acceptance. Guilt
     of appellant not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant is
     acquitted. [Paras 5, 12, 13 and 14]
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.161 – Statement under –
     Departure from – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.145.
     Held: Cross-examination of the witness by the public prosecutor
     shows that the witness was not confronted by showing the relevant
     part of her statement recorded u/s.161 of CrPC – The witness ought
     to have been confronted with her prior statement in accordance
     with s.145 of Evidence Act. [Para 8]
     Confession – Extra-judicial Confession – Normal rule of
     human conduct.
     Held: Normal rule of human conduct is that if a person wants to
     confess a crime, he will do so before the person in whom he has
     implicit faith. [Para 10]

                              Case Law Cited
     Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan [2019] 1 SCR 168 : (2019) 19 SCC
     447; Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal [2023] 2 SCR
     20 : (2023) 6 SCC 605 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence
     Act, 1872.

                             List of Keywords
     Life Imprisonment; Extra-Judicial confession; Beyond reasonable
     doubt; Last seen together.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.1635
     of 2018
     From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2018 of the High Court
     of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No.929 of 2013
468                                                            [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


                           Appearances for Parties

       Shridhar Y. Chitale, Sr. Adv. (Amicus Curiae), Ms. Beleena Biju,
       Vinayak S. Chitale, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Piyush Yadav, Prashant Singh, Advs. for the
       Respondent.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Judgment
       Abhay S. Oka, J.
1.     The Sessions Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offence
       punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
       ‘IPC’) for committing the murder of Smt Hemwati Bai, who was his
       stepmother. Appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.
       By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the appeal
       preferred by the appellant.
       FACTUAL ASPECT
2.     The case of the prosecution in brief is that the appellant had a land
       dispute with the deceased. The allegation against the appellant is
       that on 2nd March 2013, he assaulted the deceased. After that, he
       caught hold of the deceased by her hair and dragged her up to the
       village pond. The appellant put her head inside the pond water.
       The deceased was suffocated to death. The first informant–Darshu,
       PW-4, informed the police that Hemwati Bai died due to drowning.
       Accordingly, a First Information Report (for short, ‘FIR’) was registered.
       After the completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed
       against the appellant. The prosecution examined ten witnesses.
       There is no direct evidence. The prosecution relied upon evidence
       of PW-1, Sukhmani Bai, the village officer. The prosecution case
       is that the appellant made an extra-judicial confession before the
       witness. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW-5, Chaprasi,
       the deceased’s brother. According to PW-5, he saw the appellant
       holding the hair of the deceased and was taking her towards the
       pond. Though PW-1 was declared hostile, the Trial Court and High
       Court relied upon a part of her testimony. The Courts also believed
       the testimony of PW-5.
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                        469

                Ratnu Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh


     SUBMISSIONS
3.   Shri Shridhar Y. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
     as amicus curiae, has taken us through the postmortem report and
     testimony of relevant prosecution witnesses. Based on the evidence
     of PW-9, Dr Pankaj Kishore, his submission is that the death was due
     to drowning, and the prosecution has not discharged the burden on
     it to prove that it was a homicidal death. He submitted that evidence
     of PW-1, who was declared as hostile, cannot be believed as in the
     examination-in-chief, the witness did not depose that the appellant
     made a confession of killing the deceased. However, in the cross-
     examination made by the public prosecutor, the witness purportedly
     stated that the appellant confessed before her about killing the
     deceased. He submitted that evidence of PW-1 cannot be believed.
     As regards the evidence of PW-5, he stated that though the witness
     deposed that he saw the appellant dragging the deceased towards
     the pond, PW-2 – Bisoha, who was allegedly present at that time, did
     not support the prosecution. Moreover, another witness, Lakhan, was
     allegedly present there and was not examined by the prosecution. He
     pointed out that the incident happened in the evening and PW-10,
     Investigating Officer admitted that there is a temple near the house
     of the deceased and other people lived nearby. He would, therefore,
     submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the appellant’s guilt
     beyond a reasonable doubt.
4.   Shri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
     State, submitted that in her cross-examination made by the public
     prosecutor, PW-1 has clearly deposed about the confessional
     statement made by the appellant. He submitted that evidence of a
     hostile witness need not be rejected in its entirety and that the Court
     can always rely upon a part of the testimony of such a witness.
     He submitted that the evidence of PW-5 proves that the appellant
     was last seen together with the deceased, and at that time, he was
     holding the deceased by her hair. He submitted that this evidence
     is sufficient to hold that the death of the deceased is homicidal. He
     submitted that in view of the oral testimony of the said two witnesses,
     the appellant’s guilt has been established.
     CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
5.   We have carefully perused the evidence of prosecution witnesses
     and other documents on record. The prosecution is relying upon the
470                                                          [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before PW-1 and
       evidence of PW-5 of last seen together. The case of the prosecution is
       that after an altercation with the deceased in her house, the appellant
       held the deceased by her hair and dragged her to the village pond.
       The prosecution is relying upon a site map. It shows that a road
       separates the pond and the house of the deceased. The sketch
       shows the existence of a ridge around the pond and two temples
       on the ridge of the pond abutting the road. The temples are exactly
       opposite the house of the deceased. According to the prosecution
       case, the appellant dragged the deceased by holding her hair from
       her house up to the pond. Between the house of the deceased
       and the pond, there is a road and ridge of the pond. This means
       the appellant must have dragged the deceased for a considerable
       distance. The postmortem report records explicitly that no marks of
       any injury were found on the body of the deceased. In his evidence,
       PW-9 Dr Pankaj Kishore reiterated that there was no injury mark on
       the body of the deceased. If the prosecution story of the appellant
       dragging the deceased was true, there would have been some injury
       on the body of the deceased. Therefore, the absence of any injury
       marks on the body militates against the prosecution’s case.
6.     Evidence of PW-9 shows that salt water was found in the trachea
       and lungs of the deceased. Perhaps to find out whether the water
       found in the trachea and lungs of the deceased was the water in
       the pond, samples of water from the pond were collected and sent
       to the laboratory. That is what PW-10, the Investigating Officer, has
       stated in paragraph 11 of his deposition. He further stated that the
       Director of the State Judicial Laboratory returned the samples without
       testing them on the ground that the cause of death was established
       in the postmortem notes.
7.     According to PW-9, the cause of death was due to drowning; however,
       he was unable to state whether the death was homicidal or accidental.
       The reason is that it was difficult for him to state whether deceased
       immersed in the water herself or she was forced into water. In fact,
       in postmortem notes, PW-9 stated that an expert’s opinion should
       be sought. Admittedly, an expert’s opinion was not sought.
8.     Now, we turn to evidence of PW-1. She was a village Kotwal. She
       was a signatory to the panchnama of the recovery of the dead body
       and a signatory to the sketch of the site made by the police. In the
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                           471

                    Ratnu Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh


      examination-in-chief, she stated that on the date of the incident,
      around 7 p.m., the appellant came to her house and stated that his
      mother had died. She has not deposed in her examination-in-chief
      that the appellant stated that he had killed the deceased. A Statement
      under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
      ‘CrPC’) of the witness was recorded by the police. Obviously, as the
      said witness made a departure from what she had stated in the police
      statement, at the instance of the public prosecutor, the witness was
      declared hostile. The cross-examination of the witness by the public
      prosecutor shows that the witness was not confronted by showing
      the relevant part of her statement recorded under Section 161 of
      CrPC. The witness ought to have been confronted with her prior
      statement in accordance with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
      However, in the cross-examination made by the public prosecutor,
      the witness accepted the suggestion given by the public prosecutor
      that the appellant came to her house at 7 p.m. on the date of the
      incident and told her that he had killed his stepmother by putting
      her head into the village pond.
9.    As regards the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, a
      bench of three Hon’ble Judges of this Court in the case of Devi Lal
      v. State of Rajasthan1, in Paragraph 11, this Court held thus:
             “11. It is true that an extra-judicial confession is
             used against its maker but as a matter of caution,
             advisable for the court to look for a corroboration
             with the other evidence on record. In Gopal Sah v.
             State of Bihar [Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar, (2008)
             17 SCC 128 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 466] , this Court
             while dealing with extra-judicial confession held that
             extra-judicial confession is, on the face of it, a weak
             evidence and the Court is reluctant, in the absence
             of a chain of cogent circumstances, to rely on it, for
             the purpose of recording a conviction. In the instant
             case, it may be noticed that there are no additional cogent
             circumstances on record to rely on it. At the same time,
             Shambhu Singh (PW 3), while recording his statement
             under Section 164 CrPC, has not made such statement
             of extra-judicial confession (Ext. D-5) made by accused


1    [2019] 1 SCR 168 : (2019) 19 SCC 447
472                                                        [2024] 7 S.C.R.

                           Digital Supreme Court Reports


            Babu Lal. In addition, no other circumstances are on
            record to support it.”
                                                     (emphasis added)
       In paragraph 16 of the decision of this Court in the case of Nikhil
       Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal2, this Court held thus:
            “16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial
            confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held
            that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded
            by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes
            doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further
            been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of
            caution where the court would generally look for an
            independent reliable corroboration before placing any
            reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has
            been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be
            based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature
            of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.”
                                                     (emphasis added)
10. The normal rule of human conduct is that if a person wants to confess
    to the crime committed by him, he will do so before the person in
    whom he has implicit faith. It is not the case of the prosecution that
    the appellant had a close acquaintance with PW-1 for a certain
    length of time before the incident. Moreover, the version of the
    witness in examination-in-chief and cross-examination is entirely
    different. Therefore, in our considered view the testimony of PW-1
    is not reliable. Hence, the case of extra-judicial confession cannot
    be accepted.
11. Now, we come to the testimony of PW-5. At the beginning of his
    examination-in-chief, he stated that the deceased was his elder sister.
    He stated that there was an altercation between the deceased and
    the appellant in her house. Thereafter, the appellant caught hold of
    the deceased by her hair, and he slammed her. At that time, PW-2,
    Bisoha was present. The witness further stated that by holding his
    mother’s hair, the appellant took her towards the pond. At that time,
    one Lakhan came there and tried to tell the appellant that he should


2   [2023] 2 SCR 20 : (2023) 6 SCC 605
[2024] 7 S.C.R.                                                                 473

                   Ratnu Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh


     not do such acts with his mother. The appellant abused him and
     forced him to leave. It is pertinent to note that PW-2 Bisoha did not
     support the prosecution and was declared hostile. More importantly,
     Lakhan, who has allegedly seen the appellant dragging the deceased
     with her hair, has not been examined as a witness.
12. As admitted by PW-10, Investigating Officer, there is a temple near
    the deceased’s house, and other people live nearby. The incident
    happened in the evening before 7 p.m. There were two temples
    on the ridge of the pond. Obviously, there must be many people
    around the place of the incident. None of them has been examined
    as a witness. Moreover, the officer stated that it was not revealed
    during the investigation that the deceased shouted. An adverse
    inference must be drawn against the prosecution for not examining
    material witnesses, including Lakhan. Considering the evidence of
    PW-5, Lakhan was a very crucial witness. The prosecution has not
    explained his non-examination. PW-2, Bisoha has not supported
    the prosecution. Moreover, in the absence of injuries on the body
    of the deceased, it is very difficult to accept the testimony of PW-5
    that by holding the hair of his mother, the appellant dragged her to
    the pond. Therefore, evidence of PW-5 of last seen together is not
    worthy of acceptance.
13. Considering what we have held earlier, the appellant’s guilt was not
    proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant was incarcerated
    for 11 years.
14. Hence, the impugned judgment and order dated 7th April 2018 and
    9th July 2013 are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of
    the offence registered with FIR No. 68 of 2013 of Police Station
    Kharora, district Raipur. The appellant shall be immediately set at
    liberty unless his custody is required in any other case. The appeal
    is, accordingly, allowed.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
                                 (With assistance from : Nivedita Rawat, LCRA)