ISHWARI LAL YADAV & ANR. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 912 · Decided: 03-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
912
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
ISHWARI LAL YADAV & ANR.
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1522 of 2019)
OCTOBER 03, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.364/34 r/w. s.120B, ss.302/34 r/w.
s.120B and s.201 –  Gruesome murder – Prosecution case was that
on 4.3.2010 a missing report was lodged by PW-2 about missing of
his six year old daughter – Eights months later, another child (boy)
was found missing from his house and his parents started searching
for him – They noticed loud music being played in the house of
appellants – When they entered the house, they found freshly dug
mound of earth – Appellants who were claiming to be “tantriks”
admitted that they killed the boy and buried him to attain “siddhi”
– During investigation, A-4 made a statement to the police that few
months back, he had kidnapped one small girl on the asking of
A-1 and A-2 – The said girl was killed by way of human sacrifice
and her body was buried in the compound of the appellants –
Recovery of skeletal remains along with her cloths was made –
Conviction of appellants and death sentence – High Court affirmed
conviction however modified death sentence to life imprisonment –
On appeal, held: Medical evidence substantiated the case of
prosecution – In addition, parents of the deceased identified the
cloths, which the deceased child was wearing on the date of missing
– They also found the cloth pieces, attached to skeletal remains –
The colour of cloth pieces tallied with the description in the missing
report lodged by PW-2 earlier on 4.3.2010 – It was also proved
that the body of boy was found in the house of appellant-A-1 –  By
applying s.106 of the Evidence Act, the onus was on the accused to
explain the fact within their knowledge as to how the body of boy
came to be buried in their house – Apart from the recoveries, there
was a strong and consistent evidence of independent witnesses to
prove the guilt of the accused – It was also proved that the house
belonged to the appellants where skeletal remains were removed –
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 912
912
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
913
As such it was clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the
appellants were responsible for the offence alleged against them –
Further, as there was no acceptable evidence on record except the
alleged confession to prove the offence under ss.364/34 r/w 120B,
the appellants are acquitted of said offences  – At the same time, by
burying the dead body of the deceased caused disappearance of
evidence of offence, appellants are rightly convicted for offence
under s.201 –  Considering the gruesome nature of murder the
sentence imposed by the High Court is confirmed.
Evidence: Confession made to police – The confessional
statements made to the police cannot be the basis to prove the guilt
of the appellants but at the same time there is no reason to discard
the confessions made to the independent witnesses at the time when
boy’s body was found, prior to the arrival of police – Extra judicial
confession, is a weak piece of evidence but at the same time if the
same is corroborated by other evidences on record, such confession
can be taken into consideration to prove the guilt of the accused  –
Penal Code, 1860.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: It is proved by cogent evidence that the body of
boy was found in the house of appellant-A-1. By applying the
provision under Section 106 of the Evidence Act definitely it is
the burden of  the accused to explain the fact within the knowledge
of them how the body of boy came to be buried in their house.
Apart from the recoveries, there was a strong and consistent
evidence of independent witnesses to prove the guilt of the
accused. The FSL Report conclusively established that PW-3 was
the biological relative of the deceased. The said evidence if
considered  along with other oral evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it
is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the skeletal remains of
the body removed from the house of the appellants was only that
of their daughter. The house belonged to the appellants where
skeletal remains were removed. Further, as there was no
acceptable evidence on record except the alleged confession to
prove the offence under Sections 364/34 read with 120B IPC,
the appellants are entitled for acquittal for offences punishable
under Sections 364/34 and 120B IPC. At the same time, by burying
the dead body of the deceased caused disappearance of evidence
IS

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.