Extra-Judicial Confession Weak Piece Of Evidence : Allahabad High Court Acquits Convict In 2010 Murder Case

A bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Dr Gautam Chowdhary observed this while acquitting a convict in connection with a 2010 murder, noting that the trial court had not carefully scrutinised the evidence of extra-judicial confession as well as the testimony of a child witness.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, the informant (husband of the deceased) filed a written report on October 5, 2010, stating that while he was at his shop, his brother (the accused) called him to inform him that his children were crying at home.

After closing the shop, the informant went to his home at 10:15 pm, wherein he found that the house doors were open and his wife's dead body was lying on the floor, and her clothes were scattered.

The informant expressed apprehension that due to enmity on account of a dispute relating to chabutra (platform), his wife may have been killed by Anoop Singh and Deepu Singh. With these allegations, the FIR was lodged under Section 302 IPC against the named accused persons.

While the investigation in the case was ongoing, the informant submitted a second report on November 25, 2010, stating that his brother (Kishan Pratap Singh/appellant) confessed to him (in presence of two witnesses) that he attempted to rape the deceased and then strangled her to death to prevent her from reporting the incident.

Based on this alleged extrajudicial confession, the Investigating Officer removed Anoop Singh and Deepu Singh from the list of accused and filed a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC against the accused-appellant.

The court of Session, based on evidence led in the matter, convicted the accused-appellant for the aforesaid offence, aggrieved by which the accused-appellant preferred the instant appeal. Top of Form

The convict's counsel's primary contention was that the prosecution evidence was not reliable, particularly the extra-judicial confession, which was absolutely concocted.

It was also argued that the informant had himself killed his wife to marry the lady with whom he was having an affair, and to achieve his mischievous design, he manipulated evidence in connivance with the Police and falsely implicated his brother, the accused-appellant.

Lastly, it was also submitted that the testimony of P.W.-3 (3-year-old son of the deceased) was wholly unbelievable since if this witness had seen the incident in the manner claimed by him and informed his father and the Police, there existed no reason for the prosecution to wait for almost 50 days to implicate the accused-appellant in the matter.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the High Court noted that nothing was on record in the FIR or even at the inquest stage to suggest that the accused-appellant had committed the offence.

This position contradicts the version of PW3, as per which he saw the accused-appellant throttling the deceased and informed both his father and the Police about it, the Court further noted.

In this regard, the HC called it 'surprising' that despite P.W.-3 providing information about the accused to the Investigating Officer and the informant, no action was taken against the accused during the investigation. He was neither arrested nor thoroughly investigated for his role in the crime, and the prosecution failed to offer any explanation for not acting on the disclosure made by P.W.-3.

“The fact that no action was taken by the I.O. on the information given by the P.W.-3 and that this line was not pursued during investigation casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution case. The possibility of this version having been planted, later, cannot be ruled out as it would be inconceivable that no action would be taken by the I.O. on such important information.,” the Court noted.

The Court also considered the fact that the accused was implicated solely based on an extrajudicial confession made in the presence of the informant and two witnesses [Ashish Singh Chauhan (P.W.-4) and Saurabh Singh (P.W.-6)]; however, during the trial, both witnesses turned hostile and denied the alleged confession.

Now, when the Court tested the veracity of the evidence of the Informant, it noted that he remarried within a month of his wife's death with a woman whom he allegedly had an affair with.

The Court found this marriage unusual and noted that such circumstances, combined with the defence's claim of an affair, cast doubt on the informant's reliability. Hence, it added that it would not be safe to rely upon the informant alone to convict the accused.

“Extra judicial confession by its very nature is otherwise a weak piece of evidence. Unless the attending circumstances are such that the extra judicial confession is found convincing, not much weight can be accorded to it. In view of the fact that the two other witnesses to the extra judicial confession have not supported the prosecution case, and we otherwise suspect the credibility of the disclosure made by P.W.-1, it would be impermissible for us to accept the extra judicial confession as a credible piece of evidence in support of the prosecution case,” the Court furthet observed.Top of Form

In view of this, the Court refused to endorse the finding of conviction and consequential sentence of the accused-appellant by the trial court below, as it observed that the evidence of extra-judicial confession and the testimony of P.W.-3 had not been subjected to scrutiny by the court of Session.

Consequently, the convict was acquitted, and his appeal was allowed.

Appearances

Counsel for Appellant: Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, Birendra Singh, Kamlesh Kumar Tripathi, Lal Mani Singh, Ulajhan Singh Bind

Case title - Kishan Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 543

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 543

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment