CASE ANALYSIS- Rajesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 814

INTRODUCTION

Confessions are statements made by an accused acknowledging or implying their involvement in a criminal offence. They are generally regarded as reliable and conclusive evidence, based on the assumption that they are made voluntarily and truthfully. However, the credibility of confessions can be compromised by coercion, torture, threats, inducements, or lack of legal awareness. Therefore, the law provides safeguards and conditions for their admissibility in court to ensure fairness and prevent misuse.

An important exception to the general rule that confessions made to police officers or while in police custody are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is provided in Section 27. This provision allows certain statements made in police custody to be admitted as evidence, but only to the extent that they lead to the discovery of a relevant fact. Section 27 permits that “so much of the information” provided by an accused in custody, “as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered,” may be admitted in evidence. In other words, if such information leads to the discovery of material evidence such as a murder weapon, stolen goods, or a victim’s body then only the portion of the confession that directly relates to that discovery is admissible.

However, for Section 27 to apply, two key conditions must be fulfilled:

a. The person must be formally accused of an offence, and

b. The person must be in the custody of a police officer at the time the information is given.

These conditions are intended to ensure that only credible, verifiable, and lawfully obtained parts of a confession are used in evidence thereby protecting the rights of the accused and upholding the integrity of the justice system.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. The case pertains to the abduction and subsequent murder of Ajit Pal,15 year old boy allegedly carried out by three individuals, a neighbour Om Prakash Yadav along with his brother Raja Yadav and his son Rajesh Yadav.
2. The minor Ajit Pal was kidnapped on 28^th March 2013 and his body was discovered on the very next day that was on 29^th March 2013, victim’s body was dumped into a well near a farmland which belonged to Om Prakash Yadav.
3. An FIR was lodged regarding kidnapping and murder against unidentified persons for the offences.
4. While the investigation was ongoing, an accused Rajesh Yadav was questioned by the police on 29^th March 2013 around 11:00 a.m. During the interrogation accused Rajesh Yadav admitted his involvement in the kidnapping and murder of the 15 year old boy as well as he also revealed the identities of the other accused.
5. Including information about the location of the deceased’s body and certain incriminating articles.. Acting upon his statement, the authorities recovered the victim’s boy, a knife, a rope, a motorcycle, and articles of clothing from different locations.
6. At 6:30 p.m. on 29^th March 2013, Rajesh Yadav was arrested and he was put under kidnapping and murder charges, later his confessions became evidence that could be used in accordance to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether a confession made before the formal arrest of the accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act?
2. Does the status of an individual as ‘not formally accused’ at the time of confession affect the admissibility of that confession under Indian law?
3. What are the necessary conditions for the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in criminal cases?
4. To what extent can circumstantial evidence form the basis for conviction when direct evidence is absent?

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

The court stated that its focus was solely on addressing the specific question referred to it. After carefully analysing relevant legal precedents and interpreting the applicable provisions, it set out the following conclusions in its judgment: – 

1. The Court emphasized that for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to be applicable, two foundational conditions must be met, the individual must be “accused of an offence” and must also be in “police custody” at the time of making the disclosure. These prerequisites serve as safeguards to ensure that any confession admitted under this provision is both voluntary and intrinsically linked to the material fact discovered.
2. In applying these legal standards, the Court concluded that the disclosure made by Rajesh Yadav was inadmissible. At the time of his statement, he had neither been formally arrested nor was he in lawful police custody. Therefore, the provisions of Section 27 were inapplicable, and his statement stood barred by Section 26 of the Evidence Act, which expressly excludes confessions made to police officers unless made in the presence of a magistrate.
3. Furthermore, the Court clarified that even if any recovery or discovery had taken place as a result of the information allegedly provided by Rajesh Yadav, such evidence could not be used against him. This is because the underlying condition that he be in custody and formally accused was not fulfilled at the time the information was given.
4. Consequently, Rajesh Yadav was acquitted, with his conviction and sentence set aside. Nevertheless, the Court upheld Omprakash Yadav’s conviction under Section 364A in conjunction with Section 120B of the IPC. As for Raja Yadav, while his conviction was maintained, the Court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment for offences under Sections 302 and 364A, read with Section 120B IPC.
5. Raja Yadav and Rajesh Yadav were both sentenced to death for committing offences under Sections 302 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code.. Additionally, each was ordered to undergo two months of default imprisonment if they failed to individually pay fines of ₹1,000/- each. For the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC, both were additionally sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹500/- each, with a further one-month imprisonment to be served in default of payment.
6. Om Prakash Yadav received a sentence of life imprisonment, accompanied by a two month default term if he failed to pay the imposed fine of ₹2,000/-.

REASONING

1. Weakness in ‘Last Seen’ Theory:
   1. PW-3 (Puran Singh) was introduced to support a ‘last seen’ theory.
   2.  Claimed to have seen Ajit Pal with accused (Raja & Rajesh Yadav) on 26.03.2013 at a railway crossing.
   3.   His account was accepted by Trial Court but rejected by High Court due to lack of reliability.
   4. The ‘last seen’ theory collapsed, removing a key link in the circumstantial chain.
2. Gaps in Circumstantial Chain:
   1. The prosecution was unable to establish a continuous and coherent chain of evidence that conclusively pointed to the guilt of the accused alone.
   2.  Multiple discrepancies and procedural irregularities were identified.
   3. Overenthusiastic police conduct, carried out without adherence to procedural safeguards, significantly undermined the strength of the case.
   4.   The narrative was marred by contradictions and evidentiary holes.
3. Ambiguity in Timeline of Disappearance:
   1.  Missing report (Ex. P1) filed on 27.03.2013 only mentioned “9 o’clock” without clarifying AM or PM.
   2.   FIR filed on 28.03.2013 claimed Ajit Pal left at 9 AM inconsistent with PW-1’s version.
   3.  No reference to ‘Holika’ in official records.
   4.  Ransom demands also varied  undermining the ransom motive theory.
4. Call Data & FIR Irregularities:
   1.  Call data (Ex. P31) linked Om Prakash Yadav to ransom calls before the FIR was filed.
   2.   Despite this, the FIR still described the accused as “unknown.”
   3.  Raises concern over why Rajesh Yadav was arrested first, despite available data implicating Om Prakash.
5. Procedural Flaws in Arrests & Confessions:
   1. Rajesh and Raja Yadav were taken into custody on 28.03.2013, but shown as arrested later.
   2. Their confessions were recorded before formal arrest, violating Section 27 of Evidence Act.
   3. They were not “accused” or “in custody” when they allegedly aided recovery hence, inadmissible.
6. Faulty Panchnamas and Memos:
   1.  Panchnama (Ex. P3) included opinions attributed to IO, not panch witnesses.
   2.  Crime scene forms (Ex. P13 & P14) lacked independent witness narratives; appeared scripted.
   3.  Property Seizure Memos (Ex. P9, P10, P11, P12, P18, P19, P23) were similar no description of discovery process, merely attested signatures.
7. Mobile Evidence Discrepancies:
   1.  Mobile number used for ransom calls was registered to Bhuraji, not Om Prakash Yadav.
   2. Police made no effort to trace or interrogate Bhuraji.
   3.  No documentary proof linked Om Prakash to his alleged number (9993135127).
   4.   Evidence regarding SIM card misuse remained inconclusive.
8. Contradictions in PW-2’s Testimony:
   1.   PW-2 stated Om Prakash called him on 28.03.2013 and said Bobby had just left after chewing gutkha.
   2.  Claimed not to have disclosed this to police immediately.
   3.  Also said Om Prakash threatened to kill him, not mentioned earlier.
   4. Testimony introduces a new narrative inconsistent with prosecution’s version.
9. Postmortem & Medical Evidence Weakness:
   1.  Dr. Vivek Shrivastav (PW-7): Semi-digested food indicated death occurred within 6 hours of eating.
   2.  No smell of alcohol in stomach contents contradicted claim that Ajit Pal drank whiskey before being killed.
10. Police Investigation Criticized:
    1. Citing Law Commission Report No. 239, Court noted: (a.) Unscientific, careless investigation (b.) Poor coordination between police and prosecution
    2. The investigation was selective, incomplete, and manipulated, with crucial leads ignored.
    3.  Result: Failure to establish a cogent, conclusive chain of events.
11. Final Judicial Observation:
    1.  No justification for death penalty in absence of “rarest of rare” circumstances.
    2.  Capital punishment imposed despite glaring evidentiary flaws was deemed unwarranted.
    3.  Due to reasonable doubt and prosecutorial failures, the accused were acquitted.

CONCLUSION

The judgment underscores the vital importance of safeguarding an accused person’s rights during interrogation, reaffirming the constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Ultimately, the Court acquitted Rajesh Yadav, while modifying the sentences of the other co-accused.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36294925/
2. https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com/confessions-and-evidence-law-a-critical-analysis-of-the-supreme-courts-judgment-in-rajesh-v-state-of-mp/
3. https://legalvidhiya.com/rajesh-vs-state-of-madhya-pradesh/
4. https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/rajesh-v.-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh:-upholding-proof-beyond-reasonable-doubt-in-circumstantial-evidence-cases/view
5. https://www.sci.gov.in/judgements-case-no/
6. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/disclosure-statements
7. https://blog.ipleaders.in/statement-of-co-accused-under-section-25-of-indian-evidence-act-1872/

Written by Ruhaan Arman Mohammad from SOA National Institute of Law an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.