Conviction Cannot Be Solely On Extra Judicial Confession Unless Supported By Chain Of Cogent Circumstances: Madras High Court

Finding laches in the case of the prosecution, the Madras High Court recently set aside the order of conviction and sentence of a man who was accused of murdering his friend and burying his body, allegedly over the friend's refusal to perform homosexual activities with him.

The Court observed that since the prosecution case could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt, it was not safe to convict the man on the basis of an extra-judicial confession. The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira observed:

"It is also the settled law that an extra-judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra-judicial confession. In the case on hand, such a chain of cogent circumstances is missing, rather, the case of the prosecution is surrounded by suspicion from the inception."

The bench further observed that the burden of proving facts within special knowledge does not shift on the accused by pressing into service Section 106 of the Evidence Act when the prosecution could not prove the basic facts as alleged against the accused.

Background

The prosecution case was that the appellant/accused had murdered his schoolmate, one Sathishkumaran when the latter declined to have homosexual intercourse with him, fearing that he would reveal it to others. He later buried the dead body near the compound wall of his residence. 

He later surrendered before the Village Administration Officer, Devanampattinam, and gave an extra-judicial confession to the effect that he had murdered the said Sathishkumar. The Village Administration Officer produced the appellant/accused at the Nellikuppam Police Station and requested the police to take further action and also submitted his special report to the police.

Based on the confession statement, the Deputy Superintendant of Police proceeded to the scene of occurrence where the knife, and dresses of the deceased and the accused were also recovered. The accused/appellant was charged with the offences under Sections 302, 201 of IPC read with section 3(1)(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 

On completion of trial, the Trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1000/- 

Appellant's Submissions

The appellant contended that the entire prosecution case was based on vague circumstantial evidence which did not point to the guilt of the accused. The motive was not properly established. 

The appellant also submitted that though the prosecution alleged that the deceased was last seen with the appellant/accused, no evidence was produced in support of the same. The prosecution had also failed to investigate a different angle where the father and mother of the deceased had informed the prosecution that the deceased had a love affair with a girl from another community and it could have been the reason for his murder.

The petitioner also contended that the recovery of the weapon was stage-managed as was evident from the contradictions in the witness statements. Further, the prosecution also failed to prove that the premises from where the body was recovered belonged to the appellant.

He also highlighted that the Trial Court itself had disbelieved the arrest, confession, and the recovery of weapon and also found that the prosecution had failed to recover the Cell phones of the accused and the deceased. In such circumstances, the Trial Court erred in shifting the burden on the accused. 

He submitted that the Trial Court ought to have exercised great care when evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must have been accepted.

Respondent's Submissions

The respondent submitted that the prosecution had proved its case with cogent evidence. The body was recovered based on the confession of the appellant. When there was such a strong piece of evidence against him, it was upon the appellant to prove that he was not in the company of the deceased at the relevant time. Reliance was placed on Section 106 of the Evidence Act and it was submitted that the burden shifts on the appellant to prove his innocence.

Observations

The court observed that the entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence alone and not on any material evidence or eyewitness to the occurence. The prosecution had also relied on the "last seen together" theory to contend that the appellant alone was the person in company with the deceased prior to his death.

A thorough reading of the judgment rendered by the Trial Court makes it clear that though the verdict is overwhelmed with a lot factual aspects and had observed the discrepancies found by itself or pointed out by the defence, it has misled itself in shifting the burden on the appellant/accused to disprove the case against him when the prosecution itself has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.

The court observed that though the prosecution alleged that the appellant and the deceased had consumed alcohol before the alleged incident, the post mortem report did not indicate anything. Similarly, the weapon of offence was a single edged vegetable knife whereas the post mortem report read with the statement of the doctor would reveal that the injury found on the dead body could be caused only with a doubled-edged knife and with the weapon recovered, only an incised wound could be inflicted. 

The court also observed discrepancies in the statements given by prosecution witnesses and also the conduct of the investigating officer who commenced investigation without waiting for instructions from the Superintendent of Police.

The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Nagendra Sah vs. the State of Bihar wherein the court had held that as follows:

When the case of the prosecution is governed by circumstantial evidence and if chain of circumstances which is required to be established by prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to offer reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106, is not relevant at all and when the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is not a ground to convict the accused. 

In Satye Singh and another vs. the State of Uttarakhand, the Supreme Court had similarly held that Section 106 did not relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty and that the burden could not be shifted to the accused.

The court opined that the Trial Court had erred in accepting the tailor-made case of the prosecution and by patching up the holes in the prosecution by finding that the accused had to disprove the allegations leveled against him merely on the basis of last seen theory and the recovery of the body. 

The court reiterated that extra-judicial confession loses significance in the absence of any substantive evidence against the accused and there cannot be any conviction on such confession. Extra-judicial confession attains credibility and evidentiary value only if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances. The court further held that in the present case, the chain of cogent circumstances was missing, and rather the case of the prosecution was surrounded by suspicion from the inception.

Case Title: Dinesh v. State

Case No: Crl Appeal No. 737 of 2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 275

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.C.Prasanna Venkatesh

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.Babu Muthumeeran, Additional Public Prosecutor