1999 JTR(SC) 115
1999 1 AICLR 449 ; 1999 AIR(SC) 1002 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 629 ; 1999 1 ALD(Cri)(SC) 397 ; 1999 38 AllCriC 455 ; 1999 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 520 ; 1999 1 BBCJ(SC) 166 ; 1999 1 CCR(SC) 91 ; 1999 CriLR 123 ; 1999 1 Crimes(SC) 81 ; 1999 CrLJ 1450 ; 1999 1 EastCrC(SC) 727 ; 1999 1 JCC 156 ; 1999 1 JT 453 ; 1999 2 PLJR(SC) 8 ; 1999 1 RCR(Cri) 859 ; 1999 1 Scale 417 ; 1999 9 SCC 89 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 376 ; 1999 KHC 1609 ; 1999 2 Supreme 28
1999(2) Supreme 28
Supreme Court of India
(From Rajasthan High Court)
G.T. Nanavati & N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Ram Khilari -Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1984
Decided on 3-2-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Gopal Jain, Umesh Kumar, S.K. Jain, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocate.
Important Point
Merely because extra judicial confession was not made immediately after the incident but after 20 days, same could not be discarded especially person to whom confession made was a close relative of the accused whose evidence did not suffer from infirmities; conviction on basis of extra judicial confession sustained.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.24
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
(A) The evidence framework under Section 24 of the Evidence Act intersects with the substantive criminal liability prescribed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, where the legitimacy of an extra-judicial confession determines the basis of conviction for a grave offence. The evaluation of such a confession hinges on its voluntariness, reliability, and the surrounding circumstances, including the relationship between the accused and the witness, to ensure that the admission is not the product of coercion or motive to fabricate. This analysis requires the court to scrutinize the procedural context of the confession and the credibility of the witness before attributing evidentiary value to it.
(B) Key legal principles include the high evidentiary value of a reliable extra-judicial confession, the necessity of corroborating such confessions with surrounding facts, the presumption of trustworthiness in the absence of indicia of bias, and the court's duty to meticulously examine the timing, motive, and conduct of the parties involved in recording the statement.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for an offence, primarily relying on an extra-judicial confession made to a witness who is a close relative, specifically the brother-in-law of the appellant. The confession was made twenty days after the incident, and the investigating officer explained the delay in recording the statement. The trial and high courts found the witness credible and the confession trustworthy.
Findings of Court:
The courts below correctly relied on the evidence of the witness, as there was no material to suggest that he had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The relationship between the witness and the appellant was examined, and the explanation for the delay in recording the statement was deemed satisfactory, rendering the confession sufficient to establish guilt.
Issues:
Whether an extra-judicial confession made to a relative, with a twenty-day delay in recording, is reliable and admissible as the sole basis for conviction; whether the relationship between the witness and the appellant creates a reasonable apprehension of bias; and whether the investigating officer's explanation for the delay undermines the credibility of the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The mere existence of a relationship between the witness and the accused does not automatically render the confession unreliable; in the absence of any material showing motive to fabricate, the court is justified in believing the extra-judicial confession, and the satisfaction of the trial and high courts on the credibility of the witness is not erroneous.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction is upheld.
(A) The evidence framework under Section 24 of the Evidence Act intersects with the substantive criminal liability prescribed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, where the legitimacy of an extra-judicial confession determines the basis of conviction for a grave offence. The evaluation of such a confession hinges on its voluntariness, reliability, and the surrounding circumstances, including the relationship between the accused and the witness, to ensure that the admission is not the product of coercion or motive to fabricate. This analysis requires the court to scrutinize the procedural context of the confession and the credibility of the witness before attributing evidentiary value to it.
(B) Key legal principles include the high evidentiary value of a reliable extra-judicial confession, the necessity of corroborating such confessions with surrounding facts, the presumption of trustworthiness in the absence of indicia of bias, and the court's duty to meticulously examine the timing, motive, and conduct of the parties involved in recording the statement.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for an offence, primarily relying on an extra-judicial confession made to a witness who is a close relative, specifically the brother-in-law of the appellant. The confession was made twenty days after the incident, and the investigating officer explained the delay in recording the statement. The trial and high courts found the witness credible and the confession trustworthy.
Findings of Court:
The courts below correctly relied on the evidence of the witness, as there was no material to suggest that he had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The relationship between the witness and the appellant was examined, and the explanation for the delay in recording the statement was deemed satisfactory, rendering the confession sufficient to establish guilt.
Issues:
Whether an extra-judicial confession made to a relative, with a twenty-day delay in recording, is reliable and admissible as the sole basis for conviction; whether the relationship between the witness and the appellant creates a reasonable apprehension of bias; and whether the investigating officer's explanation for the delay undermines the credibility of the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi:
The mere existence of a relationship between the witness and the accused does not automatically render the confession unreliable; in the absence of any material showing motive to fabricate, the court is justified in believing the extra-judicial confession, and the satisfaction of the trial and high courts on the credibility of the witness is not erroneous.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction is upheld.
Judgment
Nanavati, J.-The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The conviction is based upon the extra judicial confession made before P.W. 5-Ram Kishan. The trial Court and the High Court have believed the said extra-judicial confession as nothing could be said against the evidence of Ram Kishan.
2. What was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W. 5-Ram Kishan had not disclosed the fact that the appellant having made extra judicial confession immediately but he did so after 20 days and therefore the courts below should not have relied upon his evidence, P.W. 5 is a close relative of the appellant. The appellant happens to be the brother-in-law of his son as the sister of the appellant has married the son of this witness. There is no material on the basis of which it can be said that he had any reason to falsely involve the appellant in commission of such a grave offence. After going through his evidence, we find that his evidence is quite reliable.
3. It was also submitted that it was not probable that the appellant would have gone to Ram Kishan and made such a confessional statement. Ram Kishan’s son being his brother-in-law, it is quite probable that the appellant thought that he would get shelter in his house. His informing Ram Kishan what had happened was therefore not improbable. It was also submitted that the explanation that this witness was not available for recording his statement for 20 days cannot be believed. The Investigating Officer has explained that he had summoned this witness but as he was not found his statement could not be recorded before 19.10.78. There is no material to infer that he had not gone to the police station even though he was informed. Evidence of P.W. 5-Ram Kishan suffers from no infirmity and we see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below that his evidence is reliable and truthful. His evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.
4. As we are of the opinion that the courts below rightly accepted the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, his conviction has to be regarded as proper. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
******************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Ram Khilari v. State of Rajasthan, 1999(2) Supreme 28 : 1999(1) Crimes 81 : 1999(1) JT 453 : 1999(1) CCR 91 : 1999(10 Crl. L.R. 449 : 1999 Crl. L.J. 1450 : 1999 SC (Crl.) 376 : AIR 1999 SC 1002 : 1999(1) JCC 156
00025