Summary
A 72-year-old man living alone in Bengaluru was found with his throat cut. Months later, police investigating another crime arrested five persons whose 'voluntary statements', partly video-recorded, admitted this and other murders. The courts below convicted them under Section 302/34 IPC, relying on those statements and the recovery of a knife and a gold ingot. The Supreme Court set the convictions aside. Confessions to police are barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3), and video recording does not make them admissible. N. Sri Rama Reddy, on tape recordings in an election petition, did not apply. The ingot was not identified as stolen property, and the knife was recovered months after the statement with a hostile panch witness. A chart of other alleged crimes without proof could not be considered, and the circumstantial chain was incomplete.
Issues
- Whether confessional 'voluntary statements' made by the accused to the police, including video-recorded statements played in court, could be relied on to convict.
- Whether recoveries of a gold ingot and a knife said to be made on the accused's information completed the chain of circumstantial evidence.
- Whether a chart listing other crimes allegedly committed by the accused's gang could be considered without proof.
- Whether interference with concurrent findings was justified.
Provisions considered
- Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872A confession to a police officer cannot be proved against the accused. Recording the statement on video does not change this, and both courts below erred in relying on such statements. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14, 15)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The claimed discoveries were unreliable. The recovered ingot was not identified as the deceased's property, and the knife was recovered four and a half months after the statement, without explanation and with a hostile panch witness. (¶¶ 11, 13)
- Article 20(3), Constitution of IndiaProtection against testimonial compulsion reinforced the exclusion of confessional statements recorded in police custody. (¶ 13)
- Sections 161 and 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Statements to police under Section 161 are not evidence of guilt. If the accused wished to confess, they should have been produced before a Magistrate under Section 164. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15)
Held
- In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must be fully proved and the chain must be complete, consistent only with guilt and excluding every other hypothesis (Hanumant, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, Musheer Khan). There was no direct, forensic or scientific evidence linking the appellants. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
- The courts below wrongly admitted the accused's statements to police and their video recordings. N. Sri Rama Reddy concerned tape-recorded conversations in an election petition, not confessions to police in a criminal trial. (¶ 13)
- The recoveries did not fill the gap. The complainant did not recognise the ingot, and the knife recovery was belated, unexplained and not supported by its independent witness. (¶ 13)
- Following the Court's decision of 19.04.2022 involving some of the same accused, recording entire custodial statements, playing confession videos and relying on an unsupported chart of other crimes must not be permitted. Other crimes may be relevant at bail or sentencing only if proved by concluded judgments. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Concurrent findings were interfered with because both courts relied on inadmissible evidence. However ghastly the crime, suspicion cannot replace legal proof. (¶ 16)
Result
Appeals allowed. The convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the life sentences were set aside, and the appellants were to be released unless wanted in another case.