2007 JTR(SC) 872
2007 3 AICLR 9 ; 2007 AIR(SC) 2316 ; 2007 AIR(SCW) 4015 ; 2007 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 574 ; 2007 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 2023 ; 2007 3 APLJ 62 ; 2007 4 CriCC 71 ; 2007 9 JT 30 ; 2007 4 RLW(Raj) 3181 ; 2007 8 Scale 446 ; 2007 5 SCC 658 ; 2007 3 SCC(Cri) 5 ; 2007 7 SCR 926 ; 2008 1 WLC 381 ; 2007 KHC 3623 ; 2007 4 Supreme 499
2007(4) Supreme 499
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh — Petitioner
versus
Nisar — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 584 of 2001
Decided on : 04-06-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Vijay Goel, Meru Sagar Samantray and Vairagya Vardhan (for C.D. Singh), Advocates.
For the Respondent : Vidya Dhar Gaur, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
No guilt can be fastened on the accused when the prosecution case is based on unreliable witness, scanty evidence and circumstantial evidence.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL TRIAL : .
(A) The appeal pertains to a criminal trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the conviction and directed acquittal, relying on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the assessment of an extra-judicial confession. The analysis underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence when the prosecution case rests primarily on circumstantial facts and scrutinizes the evidentiary value of confessional statements vis--vis contemporaneous investigative records. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing the evaluation of evidence in criminal trials, particularly the principles of circumstantial evidence and confessions, form the statutory backdrop for the judicial reasoning.
(B) Key legal principles include the high threshold required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the discretionary power of courts to evaluate the reliability of extra-judicial confessions, and the duty of the trial court to ensure that confessions are not the product of coercion. The judgment highlights that the absence of eyewitnesses and inconsistencies in the prosecution narrative can vitiate the evidentiary value of confessional statements.
Facts of the case:
The accused was tried for the murder of two graziers, where the primary evidence was a confession made to the police and the recovery of an allegedly used axe. No eyewitnesses were present, and the timeline of the recovery of the bodies and the lodging of the FIR raised questions about the credibility of the prosecutions case.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the prosecution evidence to be scanty and vulnerable, noting that the FIR did not mention the confession and that the recovery of the axe lacked scientific corroboration, such as blood grouping, which undermined the prosecutions version.
Issues:
Whether an extra-judicial confession can be solely relied upon in the absence of corroborative evidence, and whether the trial court correctly evaluated the circumstantial evidence in a case lacking direct proof.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and consistent chain of evidence. The lack of mention of the confession in the FIR, combined with the absence of scientific verification for the recovered axe, rendered the evidence insufficient to support a conviction.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed, and the accused was directed to be acquitted.
(A) The appeal pertains to a criminal trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the conviction and directed acquittal, relying on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the assessment of an extra-judicial confession. The analysis underscores the necessity of corroborative evidence when the prosecution case rests primarily on circumstantial facts and scrutinizes the evidentiary value of confessional statements vis--vis contemporaneous investigative records. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing the evaluation of evidence in criminal trials, particularly the principles of circumstantial evidence and confessions, form the statutory backdrop for the judicial reasoning.
(B) Key legal principles include the high threshold required for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the discretionary power of courts to evaluate the reliability of extra-judicial confessions, and the duty of the trial court to ensure that confessions are not the product of coercion. The judgment highlights that the absence of eyewitnesses and inconsistencies in the prosecution narrative can vitiate the evidentiary value of confessional statements.
Facts of the case:
The accused was tried for the murder of two graziers, where the primary evidence was a confession made to the police and the recovery of an allegedly used axe. No eyewitnesses were present, and the timeline of the recovery of the bodies and the lodging of the FIR raised questions about the credibility of the prosecutions case.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found the prosecution evidence to be scanty and vulnerable, noting that the FIR did not mention the confession and that the recovery of the axe lacked scientific corroboration, such as blood grouping, which undermined the prosecutions version.
Issues:
Whether an extra-judicial confession can be solely relied upon in the absence of corroborative evidence, and whether the trial court correctly evaluated the circumstantial evidence in a case lacking direct proof.
Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and consistent chain of evidence. The lack of mention of the confession in the FIR, combined with the absence of scientific verification for the recovered axe, rendered the evidence insufficient to support a conviction.
Result:
The appeal was dismissed, and the accused was directed to be acquitted.
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—
1.Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court by a learned Additional Sessions Judge in ST. No.44 of 1988 and directed acquittal of the respondent. Accused faced trial for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘Code’).
2.Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :
The case, as presented at the trial was that Kandhai and Chherkoo did not return home in the evening. A he-goat of Sitaram was also missing. The search party located the he-goat in village Karhitola in the house of Barelal (PW-4). Accused Nisar had sought shelter for the night at Barelal’s house and had brought the he-goat with him. On being questioned, the accused admitted having killed Kandhai because the latter had abused him when he was taking away the he-goat. He also confessed the murder of Chherkoo whose body was recovered at his instance.
3.The first information report (Ex.P-l) was lodged by Bhaiyalal next morning, after recovery of the body of Kandhai. The body of Chherkoo was recovered during the course of the day on the information given by accused Nisar during investigation. The usual investigation followed, and in due course the accused was tried for the offences as already described above. The trial resulted in conviction on all heads of charge.
4.Accused challenged the conviction before the High Court.
5. Before the High Court, it was urged that the conviction was based on surmises and conjectures. The so called extra judicial confession has no foundation. The accused, who was a casual passer-by and taken shelter in the house of Barelal in the night has been made a scapegoat for the blind murder of the two graziers.
Learned counsel for the State submitted that the Trial Court has analysed the evidence and after drawing proper inference, has found the accused guilty.
6.The High Court found that there was no eye-witness to the incident. Two factors which weighed with the Trial Court were the so-called recovery of an axe and the extra judicial confession. It was noticed by the High Court that there was no reference to the extra judicial confession in the FIR and though blood was stated to have been found on the axe recovered, the blood grouping was not done. Accordingly, trial Court’s judgment was set aside and acquittal was directed.
7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the extra judicial confession had been rightly relied upon by the Trial Court and the High Court should not have discarded the evidentiary value of the extra judicial confession. Similarly, the axe was recovered at the instance of the accused and, therefore, the High Court’s conclusions are erroneous.
8.It is to be noted that the First Information Report was lodged much after the so-called extra judicial confession was made. Evidence on record shows that the body of Kandhai was lying exposed in the jungle and his lathi and Khomari were lying close-by. In the FIR (Exh P-1), there was no reference to the so-called confession by the accused. Informant Bhaiyalal’s explanation that he may have forgotten to disclose this fact to the police while lodging the FIR, is totally improbable and wholly unacceptable. If in fact there was any confession as claimed that would have been the first thing to be mentioned and not that there was suspicion of the accused being the assailant. Raghvendra Singh Baghel, PW-12 had admitted that the body of Chherkoo was lying about 100 paces from the dead body of Kandhai. The High Court rightly noticed that no disclosure was necessary for locating the dead body. The axe and the khomari were also lying close-by and even a casual search would have revealed the dead bodies and the articles. The Chemical Examiner in his report Ex.P-37 had found that the axe was stained with human blood. Curiously, the blood group was not ascertained. It was, therefore, not possible to conclude that the axe was used for killing the two deceased persons.
9.Above being the nature of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the High Court was perfectly justified in finding the prosecution version vulnerable, and the evidence scanty to fasten the guilt on the accused in a case where the prosecution version rests on circumstantial evidence.
10.There is no scope for interference in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.
Rs.80/-.
***********