Admitting Into Evidence Confessional Statements Made To Police U/S 25, 26 Evidence Act Vitiate Trial: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Thursday categorically held that admission of confessional statements made by accused to the Police, which are hit by bar under Sections 25 (Confession to police officer not to be proved) and 26 (Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him) of the Evidence Act, can vitiate a trial and lead to the acquittal of the accused.

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath criticized the practice of trial courts in continuing to accept entire confession statements of the accused, despite several Supreme Court precedents discouraging this practice.

"The breach of a statutory provision that is designed to protect a citizen from self incrimination and arbitrary deprivation of life and personal liberty must necessarily have serious consequences for the prosecution. Constitutional safeguards cannot be rendered a teasing illusion by the very State that is obliged to uphold them," the Bench observed. 

Factual Matrix

The Court was considering the appeal filed by a person convicted for the gruesome double murder of an elderly couple and sentenced to life imprisonment.

In December 2006, the appellant was accused of breaking into the home of an elderly couple, where he allegedly murdered them. During the incident, he reportedly stole two gold bangles from the deceased wife, a gun, and cash from the deceased husband.

After the murders, the accused was said to have added to the gruesome crime by spreading kerosene and coconut oil on the bed sheets and pillows, setting them on fire, and sprinkling compounds such as Pepsi Entrine and Phenol in an attempt to destroy any evidence of his presence at the scene.

The trial court convicted the appellant of various offences, including murder (under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code), theft (Section 383), trespassing (Section 449), robbery (Section 397), dacoity (Section 392), and causing disappearance of evidence of the offence (Section 201).

The conviction was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, the appellant's confession statement, and the testimony of a forensic expert regarding the weapon allegedly used in the murders. As a result, the appellant received a life imprisonment sentence, prompting an appeal to the High Court to challenge this decision.

The appellant had accordingly been sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant moved the High Court challenging this decision. 

Advocates Renjith B. Marar and Lakshmi N. Kaimal for the appellants contended on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution had failed to discharge its burden of unambiguously proving the guilt of the accused.

It was averred that while some of the circumstances alleged by the prosecution were undisputed; there were serious infirmities in some other evidence adduced. These included the appellant being seen near the vicinity of the deceased couple's house around the time of the incident, him selling two broken bangles at Tirupur the next day, the factum of the billhook/koduval being the murder weapon that had been recovered pursuant to his confession statement before the CBI officials, and so on. 

Standing Counsel for the CBI K.P. Satheeshan on the other hand, argued that the prosecution had succeeded in discharging its burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was submitted that the present incident being a heinous crime, the prosecution had to rely entirely on circumstantial evidence in the absence of any eyewitness, and that they had succeeded in connecting the links in the chain of circumstances despite the limitations faced owing to the belated entrustment of the case to the CBI. 

Findings of the Court 

At the outset, the Court noted that the guilt of a person could be proved by circumstantial evidence.

It observed that the standard of proof required to convict a person on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances relied upon in support of the conviction ought to be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances also ought to be complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused, and further that it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 

The Court took note that although the CBI had commenced investigation upon being entrusted with the same in November 2007, the accused was arrested only in May 2009, and that it was thereafter based on his confession statements that the weapon was recovered from a shed outside his house. 

Upon perusal of the circumstantial evidence adduced in the case, the Court was of the considered opinion that the same was not strong enough to evidence a complete chain of events such that there could be no escape from the conclusion that, within all human probability, the crime was committed by the appellant. 

It further noted that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) in the case, on the basis of which a witness had identified the appellant as having sold to the former the cut gold bangles, was also conducted almost 3 years after the alleged incident. 

The Court observed that the prosecution had also failed to connect the alleged weapon with the accused, and added that it was trite that no inference could be drawn against an accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only on the basis of discovery of a material object pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him to a police officer.

The Court also strongly deprecated the action of marking the relevant portions of the confession statement of the accused before the CBI officials, and highlighting the admissible portions within brackets, while producing the entire confession statement before the Trial Court. 

"In our opinion, this defeated the very purpose and object of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act that bans the admission of confessions made to the police, or by persons in police custody. Section 27 being in the nature of an exception to the prohibition imposed by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, has to be construed strictly so that statements that are hit by the provisions of Sections 25 and 26, and which have a tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the court do not find their place on the records of the case," the Court observed. 

The Court strongly suspected the trial court of having been considerably influenced by the contents of the confessional statement of the appellant that were not admissible in evidence. 

"We are mindful of the fact that the murders committed in this case were most gruesome and inhumane and have caused insurmountable grief to the dear and near of the victims. We cannot however ignore the duties attached to our calling that require us to ensure that no person is deprived of his life or personal liberty unless his guilt is firmly established beyond reasonable doubt," it noted.

The appellant was thus acquitted of all charges, and the conviction and sentence passed against him was accordingly set aside. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 600

Case Title: K. Babu v. State of Kerala 

Case Number: CRL.A.NO.136 OF 2018

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment