Extra-Judicial Confession Can't Be Strong Evidence If Not Supported by Other Evidence On Record : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 20) observed that when the case of the prosecution is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession being circumstantial in nature then the accused cannot be convicted for the offence unless the chain of circumstances is completed by the prosecution.Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench Comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 20) observed that when the case of the prosecution is entirely based on the extra-judicial confession being circumstantial in nature then the accused cannot be convicted for the offence unless the chain of circumstances is completed by the prosecution.
Reversing the findings of the High Court, the Bench Comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that when the inference drawn by the prosecution based on the chain of circumstances is not explained by the prosecution, then the task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on the strength of an inference must be approached with abundant caution.
“It may be noted that the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The principles concerning circumstantial evidence are fairly settled and are generally referred as the “Panchsheel” principles. Essentially, circumstantial evidence comes into picture when there is absence of direct evidence. For proving a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must be established that the chain of circumstances is complete. It must also be established that the chain of circumstances is consistent with the only conclusion of guilt. The margin of error in a case based on circumstantial evidence is minimal. For, the chain of circumstantial evidence is essentially meant to enable the court in drawing an inference. The task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on the strength of an inference must be approached with abundant caution.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed.
Background
It was a case of the prosecution that the appellant-accused made a voluntary extra-judicial confession to PW 1 (father of the deceased child) that he murdered his 2.5-year-old child and threw the body of the deceased child in the well.
Based on the extra-judicial confession, PW 1 took the appellant-accused to the police station, and after discovering the dead body floating in the well based on the accused confession, the Police registered the FIR against the accused under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The trial court has acquitted the accused based on the inconsistencies discovered in the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses.
However, the High Court has reversed the findings of the Trial Court and convicted the appellant-accused.
It is against the decision of the High Court that the appellant-accused preferred a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court.
Submissions Made by the Parties
It was submitted by the appellant-accused, that the High Court had wrongly re-appreciated the evidence by blindly relying on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant and did not subject the extra-judicial confession to a stern test and went on to place undue reliance on the same.
Per contra, it was submitted by the respondent state that the High Court has rightly re-appreciated the entire evidence as the extra-judicial confession led to the discovery of the object/dead body. Further, it submitted that the minor discrepancies must not be allowed to demolish the entire testimony of a witness.
Supreme Court's Observation
Agreeing to the submissions made by the accused, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court has erred in convicting the accused by re-appreciating the evidence and relying on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the PW 1 (an interested witness being a father of deceased child).
The Supreme Court noted several discrepancies in the depositions made by PW 1 related to the arrest of the appellant-accused and found evidentiary aspects of such depositions as doubtful.
“The confession was followed by two things – the arrest of the appellant and recovery of dead body of the deceased. The evidentiary aspects concerning these facts are equally doubtful. As per the testimony of PW-1, he had taken the appellant to the police station and he was arrested there. Contrarily, PW-16/I.O. deposed that after recording the complaint, he had arrested the appellant from his house. The mode and manner of arrest, especially the place of arrest, is doubtful. It also raises a question on the aspect of confession – whether the confession was recorded when the appellant himself visited the police station with PW-1 or when he was arrested from his house and was taken to the police station by PW-16. The confessions, one made after a voluntary visit to the police station and the other made after arrest from the house, stand on materially different footings from the point of view of voluntariness. The likelihood of the latter being voluntary is fairly lesser in comparison to the former.”
Further, the Supreme Court also noted the inconsistencies in the statements made by PW 1 related to the recovery of the dead body, therefore the case of the prosecution is not free from doubts.
“The description of the deceased given by PW-1 in his complaint Ex.P1 did not match with the description of the dead body. The clothes found on the dead body were substantially different from the clothes mentioned by PW-1 in his complaint. The presence of ornaments was not mentioned in the complaint. Furthermore, identification of the dead body by face was not possible as the body had started decomposing due to lapse of time. Admittedly, the dead body was recovered after 12 days of the incident from a well. Sensitive body parts were found bitten by aquatic animals inside the well. The theory of ornaments has already been held to be a figment of imagination by the Trial Court and the High Court in an unequivocal manner. Therefore, the prosecution case regarding the identity of the dead body is not free from doubts.”
Extra-Judicial Confession Being a Weak Type Of Evidence Should Be Accepted With Great Care and Caution
The court records that the conviction of the appellant is largely based on the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by him before PW-1. Further, it stated that the extra-judicial is a weak type of evidence and should be accepted with great care and caution.
“It is no more res integra that an extra-judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of acceptability of an extra-judicial confession depends on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the circumstances in which it was given. The prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true. The standard required for proving an extra-judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra-judicial confession.”
Accused Acquittal Can't Be Reversed Merely On The Existence Of Different View
The Supreme Court observed that the findings of the trial court to acquit the accused cannot be reversed merely because a different view appears to be recorded by the High Court after re-appreciating the evidence.
“This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Trial Court had appreciated the entire evidence in a comprehensive sense and the High Court reversed the view without arriving at any finding of perversity or illegality in the order of the Trial Court. The High Court took a cursory view of the matter and merely arrived at a different conclusion on a re-appreciation of evidence. It is settled law that the High Court, in exercise of appellate powers, may reappreciate the entire evidence. However, reversal of an order of acquittal is not to be based on mere existence of a different view or a mere difference of opinion.”, the Supreme Court observed.
“to reverse an order of acquittal in appeal, it is essential to arrive at a finding that the order of the Trial Court was perverse or illegal; or that the Trial Court did not fully appreciate the evidence on record; or that the view of the Trial Court was not a possible view.”, the Supreme Court added.
According to the court, if two views are possible then the view favoring the innocence of accused must be taken in to account.
When Case Is Entirely Based On Circumstantial Evidence, The Chain Of Events Must Be Completely Established
The Supreme Court stressed the importance of establishing a complete chain of evidence when the prosecution relies solely on circumstantial evidence and in the absence of direct evidence.
“For proving a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must be established that the chain of circumstances is complete chain of circumstances is consistent with the only conclusion of guilt. The margin of error in a case based on circumstantial evidence is minimal. For, the chain of circumstantial evidence is essentially meant to enable the court in drawing an inference. The task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on the strength of an inference must be approached with abundant caution.”
“The doubtful existence of the extra judicial confession, unnatural conduct of PW-1, recovery of dead body in the presence of an unreliable witness PW-2, contradictions regarding arrest, unnatural prior and subsequent conduct of PW-1, incredible testimony of the witnesses in support of the last seen theory etc. are some of the inconsistencies which strike at the root of the prosecution case.” the Supreme Court highlighted the contradictions which doesn't establish the chain of events.
Purpose of Criminal Trial Is To Punish Guilty And Not Innocent
After finding that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstances, the court disagreed with the submission made by the respondent state to contend that minor inconsistencies could not be construed as reasonable doubts for ordering acquittal.
According to the court, the observations in this regard may not advance the case of the respondent in the present appeal because the inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution are not minor inconsistencies.
“It is also noteworthy that the purpose of criminal trial is not only to ensure that an innocent person is not punished, but it is also to ensure that the guilty does not escape unpunished. A judge owes this duty to the society and effective performance of this duty plays a crucial role in securing the faith of the common public in rule of law. Every case, wherein a guilty person goes unpunished due to any lacuna on the part of the investigating agency, prosecution or otherwise, shakes the conscience of the society at large and diminishes the value of the rule of law. Having observed so, the observations in this regard may not advance the case of the respondent in the present appeal. It is so because the inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution are not minor inconsistencies. As already discussed above, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstances.”
Conclusion
In light of the aforementioned observations made by the Supreme Court, the appeal preferred by the appellant-accused is allowed and the impugned order/judgment of the High Court was set aside.
The Supreme Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sharan Thakur, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv. Mr. Shivamm Sharrma, Adv. Mr. P.N. Singh, Adv. Mr. Mustafa Sajad, Adv. Ms. Keerti Jaya, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Muhammed Ali Khan, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Omar Hoda, Adv. Ms. Eesha Bakshi, Adv. Mr. Uday Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Kamran Khan, Adv. Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv.
Case Details:
Kalinga @ Kushal Versus State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli, Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2013
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 142