Extra-judicial confession: Being weak piece of evidence, Rule of Caution must be applied - Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal
The Appellant challenged before a Bench
of the Supreme Court of India, subject matter concerning the conviction of
appellant by the High Court of Calcutta. The High Court of Calcutta had
reversed the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court and convicted the
appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence to undergo life imprisonment
merely on the basis of extra –judicial confession.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The
fact which led to the conviction of appellant by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Calcutta under Section 302 of IPC, was that dead body of wife of
appellant was found on the railway track. The lady was murdered by a sharp
weapon. During investigation, it was revealed that appellant, his deceased wife
and his son had gone to a Mela from where she went missing and also he
confessed before the three police (prosecution witnesses) that he had murdered
the deceased with weapon.
But trial court acquitted the appellant
because it disbelieved the testimonies of three prosecution witnesses (police)
as being inconsistent with each other.
The trial court observed that where the
prosecution case is entirely based on extra-judicial confession and the
prosecution seeks conviction of the accused on the extra-judicial confession,
the evidence of the witnesses before whom the alleged confession statement was
made, requires a greater scrutiny to pass the test of credibility.
Dissatisfied by order of trial Court, State preferred appeal before the High Court, whereby the Court convicted the accused/appellant to life imprisonment by impugned judgment and order.
You may also read:
Supreme Court: No examination of child witness at advanced stage of trial
SUBMISSIONS
The learned counsel of appellant
vehemently submitted that the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the
well-reasoned judgment and acquittal passed by the trial court. The trial court
has rightly disbelieved the testimonies of three prosecution witnesses. The
counsel further submitted that in any case the interference in a finding of
acquittal would not be warranted unless the finding is found to be perverse or
illegal/impossible.
Whereas on the contrary, the learned
counsel for State/respondent submitted that the High Court has rightly found
that the extra-judicial confession made before the witnesses is trustworthy,
reliable and cogent.
Learned Counsel for State further
submitted that apart from the extra-judicial confession, the prosecution has
also established the recovery of the blood-stained clothes and the weapon used
by the appellant in commission of crime. The circumstance corroborates the
testimony of witnesses.
DECISION
The Hon’ble Supreme Court said, the present
case rest entirely on circumstantial evidence. The law regarding conviction on
the basis of circumstantial evidence is very well explained in the case
of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116.
It was held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established and the circumstances concerned ‘must or
should ‘ and not ‘may be’ established.
The Sharad Birdhichand’s case
also explained the five golden principles to constitute the conditions before a
case against an accused can be fully established.
1. The circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
2. The fact so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
3. the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency,
4. they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
5. there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability
the act must have been done by the accused.
It
is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may be, it cannot
take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt – Supreme Court emphasized.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court said that the
extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that
where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by the suspicious
circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.
The Court has also said that according
to well settled principle that it is a rule of caution where the Court would
generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any
reliance upon such extra-judicial confession.
An extra-judicial confession is
admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an
accused if the following principles are present, as observed in Sahadevan
and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403.
i. the
extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined
by the Court with greater care and caution.
ii. It
should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
(iii) It
should inspire confidence.
(iv) 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.
(v) For
an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not
suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such
statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance
with law.
The Trial court found the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses unreliable so as to convict the accused.
Whereas
the High Court has relied on the recovery of the blood-stained clothes and the
weapon which is alleged to have been used by the appellant in commission of
crime.
On the other hand, the trial court
disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon on two grounds.
a. that
there was no memorandum statements of the accused as required under section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and
b. the
recovery of the knife was from an open place accessible to one and all.
However,
the Supreme Court viewed that the ground adopted by the trial court was in
accordance to law.
In the view point of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it is not permissible for the appellate court to interfere with
the finding of acquittal unless the finding is found to be perverse or
illegal/impossible.
The
Court referred to the most recent judgment of Rajesh Prasad vs State
of Bihar and Another (2022) 3 SCC 471 on the scope of
interference in a case of acquittal. It was held that there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence
that is available to him under fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty
by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having acquitted, the
presumption of innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the Court. It was also held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the
basis of the evidence on record, the appellant court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
Therefore,
the Supreme Court was in the opinion that the High Court has grossly erred in
interfering the well reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the
trial court. Hence the appellant was set at liberty by quashing the impugned
judgment of the High Court which convicted the appellant for the offences
punishable under section 302 of the IPC and affirming judgment of the trial
court.
Case: Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal (Criminal Appeal no. 2269 of 2010)
Before Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sanjay Karol.
You May also read:
Chance Witness and its evidentiary value
0 Comments