Court’s Decision
The Sikkim High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of ₹500 imposed by the trial court for murdering his 82-year-old grandmother by slitting her throat with a surgical blade. The Court upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts, forensic reports confirming the presence of the victim’s blood on the appellant’s clothes and the weapon, and credible recovery evidence, despite rejecting the extra-judicial confession to the doctor due to police custody restrictions.
Facts
The appellant, aged 29, was accused of murdering his grandmother on 1 November 2022 at Majhi Gaon, Sikkim, by slitting her throat with a surgical blade. The incident was witnessed by neighbours, and the appellant was apprehended near a riverside shortly after the incident with the weapon and blood-stained clothes. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses, including eyewitnesses, police officers, doctors, and forensic experts. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was sustainable based on the evidence.
- Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession to the doctor was inadmissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Whether the absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) vitiated the identification of the appellant.
- Whether procedural lapses in seizure, delay in sending evidence, and chain of custody issues undermined the prosecution case.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant argued that:
- The seizure of the weapon and other articles was improper, with inconsistencies in witness statements and the absence of seizure memos for some items.
- The extra-judicial confession to the doctor was inadmissible as it was made while in police custody.
- The failure to conduct a TIP made the identification unreliable.
- Delay of 28 days in sending material objects for forensic analysis and non-compliance with CFSL guidelines compromised the chain of custody and reliability of the forensic evidence.
- Cited Perumal Raja, Allarakha Habib Memon, and Abdul Waheed Khan to argue against the admissibility of the confession and the reliability of the evidence.
Respondent’s Arguments
The prosecution argued:
- Multiple eyewitnesses saw the appellant fleeing from the crime scene, and they had sufficient opportunity to identify him, making a TIP unnecessary.
- The surgical blade and blood-stained clothes were recovered from the appellant shortly after the incident in the presence of independent witnesses.
- Forensic analysis confirmed that the blood on the appellant’s clothes and the weapon matched the victim’s blood.
- The confession to the doctor was voluntary, but even without it, the remaining evidence proved the case beyond doubt.
- Cited the appellant’s prolonged interaction with witnesses, the clear chain of events, and corroborative forensic evidence to support the conviction.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed:
- Section 302 IPC concerning murder and its evidentiary standards.
- Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, confirming that confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless made before a magistrate.
- Established principles that TIP is not mandatory if witnesses have had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused.
- The chain of custody principles and the requirement to prove that material evidence remained untampered.
Precedent Analysis
The Court discussed:
- Matru alias Girish Chandra v. State of UP: TIP is not substantive evidence but corroborative and unnecessary if the accused is well-identified.
- Kishore Chand v. State of HP and Ram Singh v. Sonia: Definitions of police custody and inadmissibility of confessions made while in custody.
- Distinguished Dharamveer Prasad and Prakash Nishad regarding chain of custody in NDPS cases as inapplicable.
- Clarified Perumal Raja principles on extra-judicial confession inadmissibility under custody, while accepting voluntary confessions to non-police persons outside custody.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held:
- The extra-judicial confession to the doctor was inadmissible as the appellant was in police custody, but confessions made voluntarily to other witnesses, including civilians, were admissible and corroborated by the evidence.
- The absence of TIP was inconsequential as the appellant was apprehended near the crime scene in the presence of multiple witnesses who had seen him during the incident.
- The forensic evidence was reliable, confirming the presence of the victim’s blood on the appellant’s clothes and the weapon.
- There were no material contradictions or procedural lapses in the seizure and examination of evidence that would undermine the prosecution’s case.
- The prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
The Sikkim High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC imposed on the appellant for the murder of his grandmother, dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit.
Implications
- Confirms that the absence of a TIP does not vitiate identification if witnesses had clear, direct observation of the accused during the incident.
- Clarifies the application of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding confessions made in police custody.
- Reaffirms the weight of consistent eyewitness testimony corroborated by forensic evidence in upholding murder convictions.
Brief on Cases Referred
- Matru alias Girish Chandra: TIP is not mandatory if identification is clear.
- Kishore Chand and Ram Singh v. Sonia: Explained “police custody” under the Indian Evidence Act.
- Perumal Raja: Highlighted the inadmissibility of confessions made in police custody.
- Dharamveer Prasad and Prakash Nishad: Chain of custody issues distinguished as irrelevant to this case.
These cases guided the analysis of confession admissibility, the necessity of TIP, and the chain of custody principles.
FAQs
1. Was the confession to the doctor considered in this case?
No, it was held inadmissible under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act since it was made while in police custody.
2. Why was the absence of a TIP not fatal to the prosecution?
Because eyewitnesses had sufficient opportunity to observe the appellant during and immediately after the incident, making TIP unnecessary.
3. Did delays in sending evidence for forensic analysis affect the case?
No, the Court found no evidence of tampering, and the forensic reports reliably confirmed the presence of the victim’s blood on the appellant’s clothes and weapon.