Summary
The appellant was accused of killing a woman in Karnataka in 2010 because she opposed his relationship with her stepdaughter, and of burying the body with a co-accused's help. The trial court acquitted all three accused. On the State's appeal, the High Court convicted him of murder, mainly on the co-accused's extra-judicial confession to the deceased's son-in-law four months later and on discoveries attributed to him. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal. The High Court never found the acquittal palpably wrong, as it must before reappraising evidence. A co-accused's confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act can only lend assurance to other evidence, yet the High Court began with it. A Section 27 discovery requires proof of the accused's exact words, and pointing out an object does not prove who hid it. Conduct and hearsay motive cannot alone support a conviction.
Issues
- Whether the High Court rightly reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant of murder on circumstantial evidence.
- What evidentiary value attaches to an extra-judicial confession of a co-accused and to discoveries claimed under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Provisions considered
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973In an appeal against acquittal the appellate court must first find the trial court's view palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable before reappraising evidence; no such finding was recorded. (¶¶ 34, 41, 42, 43, 46)
- Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence and can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence. (¶¶ 58, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The exact information given by the accused in custody must be proved, ideally recorded before independent witnesses at the police station; vague statements do not establish authorship of concealment. (¶¶ 76, 77, 78, 81, 83, 84, 86, 87)
- Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Conduct of pointing out a place may be relevant but cannot by itself found a conviction for murder. (¶¶ 88, 89)
Held
- The High Court recorded no satisfaction that the trial court's findings were palpably wrong or perverse and should not have disturbed a well-reasoned acquittal. (¶ 46)
- An extra-judicial confession surrounded by suspicious circumstances, made by a co-accused months later to the deceased's relative in whom he had no reason to confide, could not be relied on; the High Court erred in treating it as the basis and seeking corroboration, instead of first marshalling the other evidence as Kashmira Singh requires. (¶¶ 52, 57, 58, 59, 60)
- None of the witnesses deposed to the appellant's exact statement leading to discovery, and the statement 'I may get discovered the murder weapon' did not show authorship of concealment; the discoveries of weapon, clothes and body were not legal evidence. (¶¶ 77, 78, 84, 86, 94)
- Motive, resting on hearsay, may raise suspicion but cannot substitute for proof; once the confession and discoveries failed, the chain of circumstances snapped. (¶¶ 92, 93)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's conviction set aside and the appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.