1983 JTR(SC) 50
1983 AIR(SC) 360 ; 1983 CriLR 188 ; 1983 1 Crimes(SC) 984 ; 1983 CrLJ 692 ; 1983 CrLJ 69202 ; 1983 1 Scale 717 ; 1983 2 SCC 251 ; 1983 SCC(Cri) 387 ; 1983 KHC 571
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Kora Ghasi, Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 84 of 1976, D/- 3-2-1983.
Advocates appeared
Mrs. S. Bhandare, Advocate, for Appellant (A. C. ) Mr. B. Parthasarthi and Mr. P. N. Misra, Advocates for Respondent.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.21, S.24, S.27
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
(A) The Indian Penal Code, Section 302, governs punishment for murder, and the Evidence Act, Sections 21, 24, and 27, regulate the admissibility and evaluation of confessions and witness testimony. In this appeal against an acquittal, the High Court relied on a retracted confession and circumstantial indicators, including recovery of a weapon, to convict the accused under Section 302, while Sections 21, 24, and 27 informed the assessment of confession reliability and corroboration needs. The court examined whether the confession, though initially voluntary, required sufficient corroboration and whether the FIR and witness evidence supported the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
(B) Key legal principles include that a retracted confession requires strong corroboration; mere recovery of a weapon from an accessible location is insufficient; the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and appellate courts may interfere with acquittals only if the evidence clearly supports conviction. The case also highlights that FIR details mentioning suspects but not the accused weaken the prosecutions initial narrative.
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The main evidence was a retracted confession before a magistrate admitting assault with a lathi, which the courts held was voluntary but lacked corroboration except for the accused indicating the weapon. Three witnesses were noted as having last seen the deceased and accused together, but the FIR named these witnesses as suspects and did not name the accused. Recovery of the weapon was from an open place accessible to all, and no evidence under Section 201 was found sufficient.
Findings of Court:
The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, the High Court reversed this on appeal and convicted, but this court found the evidence very slender and not sufficient to overturn the acquittal. The view taken by the Sessions Judge was reasonably possible, and the High Court should not have reversed the acquittal. No evidence supported a conviction under Section 201, so the accused is acquitted of that offence.
Issues:
Whether the retracted confession, without strong corroboration, can sustain a murder conviction; whether recovery of a weapon from an open place amounts to sufficient evidence; and whether an appellate court can interfere with a Sessions Court acquittal on slender evidence.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appellate courts must respect acquittals where the evidence is slender and not clearly supportive of conviction; a retracted confession requires strong corroboration, and mere recovery of a weapon from an accessible location is inadequate; Sections 21, 24, and 27 of the Evidence Act guide the evaluation of confession and testimony, leading to the conclusion that the Sessions Judges acquittal was reasonably possible and should not be disturbed.
Result:
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 set aside; accused released forthwith.
(A) The Indian Penal Code, Section 302, governs punishment for murder, and the Evidence Act, Sections 21, 24, and 27, regulate the admissibility and evaluation of confessions and witness testimony. In this appeal against an acquittal, the High Court relied on a retracted confession and circumstantial indicators, including recovery of a weapon, to convict the accused under Section 302, while Sections 21, 24, and 27 informed the assessment of confession reliability and corroboration needs. The court examined whether the confession, though initially voluntary, required sufficient corroboration and whether the FIR and witness evidence supported the conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
(B) Key legal principles include that a retracted confession requires strong corroboration; mere recovery of a weapon from an accessible location is insufficient; the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and appellate courts may interfere with acquittals only if the evidence clearly supports conviction. The case also highlights that FIR details mentioning suspects but not the accused weaken the prosecutions initial narrative.
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The main evidence was a retracted confession before a magistrate admitting assault with a lathi, which the courts held was voluntary but lacked corroboration except for the accused indicating the weapon. Three witnesses were noted as having last seen the deceased and accused together, but the FIR named these witnesses as suspects and did not name the accused. Recovery of the weapon was from an open place accessible to all, and no evidence under Section 201 was found sufficient.
Findings of Court:
The Sessions Court acquitted the accused, the High Court reversed this on appeal and convicted, but this court found the evidence very slender and not sufficient to overturn the acquittal. The view taken by the Sessions Judge was reasonably possible, and the High Court should not have reversed the acquittal. No evidence supported a conviction under Section 201, so the accused is acquitted of that offence.
Issues:
Whether the retracted confession, without strong corroboration, can sustain a murder conviction; whether recovery of a weapon from an open place amounts to sufficient evidence; and whether an appellate court can interfere with a Sessions Court acquittal on slender evidence.
Ratio Decidendi:
Appellate courts must respect acquittals where the evidence is slender and not clearly supportive of conviction; a retracted confession requires strong corroboration, and mere recovery of a weapon from an accessible location is inadequate; Sections 21, 24, and 27 of the Evidence Act guide the evaluation of confession and testimony, leading to the conclusion that the Sessions Judges acquittal was reasonably possible and should not be disturbed.
Result:
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 set aside; accused released forthwith.
B.PARTHASARTHY, P.N.MISHRA, S.Bhandan
JUDGMENT :- The appellant was charge-sheeted under S. 302, I. P. C. but on trial the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence against him to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The State of Orissa filed an appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and the High Court, on appeal, reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge and convicted the appellant under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. We have gone through the judgment of the Sessions Judge and that of the High Court and we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence against the appellant is very slender. The main evidence against the appellant consists of the retracted confession made by the accused before the Magistrate where he admitted to have assaulted the deceased with a lathi as a result of some altercation with the deceased. This confession has been held to be voluntary both by the High Court and Sessions Court and nevertheless as the confession was retracted corroboration was necessary. According to the prosecution the confession was clearly corroborated by the fact that the appellant pointed out the weapon. These are the two main pieces of evidence against the appellant. It was also suggested that three witnesses P. Ws. 2, 4 and 5 had last seen the deceased and accused together. An important fact which has not been noticed by the High Court is that whereas in the FIR lodged by Hantal Podu P. W. 9 there is clear mention of the names of P. Ws. 2, 4 and 5, the name of the appellant is not disclosed in the FIR. On the other hand the names of P. Ws. 2, 4 and 5 are mentioned in the FIR as being suspected of killing the deceased. So far as the recovery is concerned we cannot attach much importance to this fact as it was from an open place accessible to all. At any rate after going through the judgment of the High Court and Court below it cannot be said that the view taken by the Sessions Judge was not reasonably possible in the circumstances of this case. It was not open to the High Court in the circumstances of this case to reverse the order of acquittal even if it was possible to take a different view. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 201, I. P. C. but we do not find any evidence under S. 201, I. P. C. and therefore the accused is acquitted of that offence also. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Ss. 302 and 201, I. P. C. The appellant will be released forthwith.
2. We are very grateful to Mrs. S. Bhandare who assisted us in deciding this appeal and she has drawn our attention to some vital circumstances which have found favour with us.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1983 SC 360