‘Extra-judicial confession lacked credibility and evidence suffered from material contradiction’; SC acquits murder convict even after strong suspicion

Supreme Court: In a criminal appeal against the Bombay High Court’s decision, whereby the Trial Court’s decision convicting the accused under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, was affirmed, the Division Bench Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan*, JJ. allowed the appeal holding that the evidence on the basis of which the prosecution sought conviction of the accused i.e. extra-judicial confession made before the witnesses, lacked credibility. The Court also added that the evidence suffered from material contradiction. Thus, the Court quashed the High Court’s decision affirming the Trial Court’s view.

Factual Matrix

The prosecution’s case was that the accused and the deceased lived together in a live-in relationship. The accused informed the landlord that his wife/ partner had expired and that he was going to her parents’ house to inform them. The accused met the brother of the deceased and told him that there was a quarrel between him and his wife, following which he had assaulted her with a grinding stone, and she succumbed to the injuries. Meanwhile, the landlord opened the bolted house, where he found the deceased lying dead with multiple injuries.

Analysis and Decision

The Court noted that when the accused went to the deceased’s village, he met her brother, who was sitting along with three others in front of his house, and informed him that there was a quarrel between him and the deceased because of which he had assaulted her. The Court also noted that they reached the house of the accused, and thereafter, they along with the landlord went to the police station to file a complaint. The Court pointed out that the brother of the deceased had denied the suggestion that the accused had never told him about his quarrel with his wife and that he had assaulted her because of which she died. The suggestion that the accused had told him that in the night, some thieves had come and that they had assaulted him and the deceased, was also denied. The Court also noted that the other two witnesses and the landlord had also denied these suggestions.

To consider the question of whether on the strength of the evidence of the four witnesses, the accused could be linked with the offence and it was conclusively proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the Court examined the law around extra-judicial confession.

The Court elucidated that extra-judicial confession of an offence made by the accused before a witness is one of the several instances of circumstantial evidence, there are other circumstances such as the theory of last seen together; conduct of the accused before or immediately after the incident; human blood being found on the clothes or person of the accused which matches with that of the accused; leading to discovery, recovery of weapon etc.

“Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.”

The circumstances would not only have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, those would also have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The Court also said that the evidence relied upon is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted.

Further, the Court added that as to extra-judicial confessions, two questions arise: firstly, whether they are made voluntarily, and secondly, are they true? The Court explained that if the Court believes that the confession was not made voluntarily but was a result of an inducement, threat, or promise, it would not be acted upon. Whether or not the confession was voluntary would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case judged in the light of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Evidence Act’).

“A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit because it is presumed to flow from the highest sense of guilt.”

The Court noted the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused, as laid down in Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403:

1. The extra-judicial confession is weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.

2. It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

3. It should inspire confidence.

4. An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

5. For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

6. Such a statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with the law.

In the matter at hand, on the basis of the cross-examination of the witnesses before whom the extra-judicial confession was made, the Court said that the accused was in a confused state of mind and, hence, was not in a fit state of mind when he made the extra-judicial confession before the deceased’s brother. That apart, the Court pointed out that there were no blood stains on the clothes worn by the accused. The Court also added that there was no recovery of any blood-stained clothes, no grinding stone was recovered, and no blood stains on the recovered stick. The Court found it strange that instead of confessing his guilt before the police or any other authority, he went to his landlord and then to the deceased’s brother. The Court also pointed out that the behaviour of the deceased’s brother was strange as there was no reaction when the accused confessed before him that he had killed his sister. The Court said that this was not at all normal behaviour of a brother. The Court also noted other glaring omissions in the cross-examination of the brother and that his statement before the police was not recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC.

Hence, the Court said that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses suffered from a serious lack of credibility and was also hit by contradictions which struck at the very root of the prosecution case. No corroborating circumstances were brought on record by the prosecution. The Court said that there was a strong suspicion against the accused and the needle of suspicion qua the death of the deceased pointed towards him but as is the settled jurisprudence of this country, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of hard evidence.

Hence, the Court held that the accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Court set aside the impugned decision.

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE