1999 1 Crimes(SC) 81 ; 1999 CrLJ 1450 ; 1999 SCC(Cri) 376 ; 1999 2 Supreme 28
1999(1) Crimes 81 (SC)
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 :INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302
(A) The appellant was charged and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the commission of murder. The central legal question revolved around the admissibility and reliability of an extra-judicial confession made by the accused to a witness, which served as the primary evidence for the conviction. The court analyzed whether such a confession, despite a delay in recording the witness's statement by the police, could sustain a conviction under the statutory requirements of the Indian Penal Code.
(B) An extra-judicial confession is admissible and reliable if the witness is deemed truthful and there is no evidence of motive to falsely implicate the accused. A delay in recording the statement of the witness does not inherently vitiate the evidence if the Investigating Officer provides a plausible explanation for the delay.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murder based on an extra-judicial confession made to a witness who is a relative by marriage. The defense challenged the reliability of this confession on the grounds that the witness's statement was recorded 20 days after the event and that it was improbable for the appellant to make such a confession to the said witness.
Findings of Court:
The court found the witness's testimony to be reliable and truthful, noting that as a relative, it was probable the appellant sought shelter and confessed. The court accepted the Investigating Officer's explanation that the witness was unavailable for summoning during the 20-day period, concluding that there was no material to suggest the witness was avoiding the police or that the evidence was fabricated.
Issues:
Whether the extra-judicial confession made to a relative is reliable enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC despite a delay in recording the witness's statement.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a witness is found to be credible and possesses no motive to falsely implicate the accused, an extra-judicial confession is sufficient to establish guilt. A procedural delay in recording a statement does not invalidate the evidence if the delay is reasonably explained by the investigating authorities.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
(A) The appellant was charged and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the commission of murder. The central legal question revolved around the admissibility and reliability of an extra-judicial confession made by the accused to a witness, which served as the primary evidence for the conviction. The court analyzed whether such a confession, despite a delay in recording the witness's statement by the police, could sustain a conviction under the statutory requirements of the Indian Penal Code.
(B) An extra-judicial confession is admissible and reliable if the witness is deemed truthful and there is no evidence of motive to falsely implicate the accused. A delay in recording the statement of the witness does not inherently vitiate the evidence if the Investigating Officer provides a plausible explanation for the delay.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murder based on an extra-judicial confession made to a witness who is a relative by marriage. The defense challenged the reliability of this confession on the grounds that the witness's statement was recorded 20 days after the event and that it was improbable for the appellant to make such a confession to the said witness.
Findings of Court:
The court found the witness's testimony to be reliable and truthful, noting that as a relative, it was probable the appellant sought shelter and confessed. The court accepted the Investigating Officer's explanation that the witness was unavailable for summoning during the 20-day period, concluding that there was no material to suggest the witness was avoiding the police or that the evidence was fabricated.
Issues:
Whether the extra-judicial confession made to a relative is reliable enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC despite a delay in recording the witness's statement.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a witness is found to be credible and possesses no motive to falsely implicate the accused, an extra-judicial confession is sufficient to establish guilt. A procedural delay in recording a statement does not invalidate the evidence if the delay is reasonably explained by the investigating authorities.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; conviction 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.
Appeal dismissed. (C.R.)