Summary
A murder conviction based on an alleged extra-judicial confession and last-seen evidence was set aside. Medical findings showed drowning but did not establish homicide and disclosed no injuries consistent with the alleged dragging. The confession witness’s inconsistent account and the prosecution’s failure to examine crucial witnesses further undermined the case. The appellant was acquitted after eleven years’ incarceration.
Issues
- Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession was reliable.
- Whether medical findings and last-seen evidence proved murder beyond reasonable doubt.
- What effect followed from failure to examine material witnesses.
Provisions considered
- Section 145, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The hostile witness should have been confronted with the relevant portion of her prior police statement; that procedure was not followed when the prosecutor cross-examined her. (¶ 8)
Held
- An extra-judicial confession is a weak form of evidence, though it may sustain conviction if reliable. Caution ordinarily calls for independent reliable corroboration, especially where suspicious circumstances surround the confession. (¶ 9)
- The village officer initially testified only that the appellant told her his mother had died, then accepted a prosecutorial suggestion that he confessed to killing her. She was not properly confronted with the relevant prior statement, and no relationship of implicit confidence was established. Her inconsistent testimony could not prove the alleged confession. (¶¶ 8, 10)
- The medical evidence established drowning but could not distinguish homicide from accident. No expert opinion was obtained despite the postmortem recommendation. The absence of any injury also contradicted the account that the deceased had been dragged a substantial distance by her hair over a road and pond ridge. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- The other witness said to have been present did not support the prosecution, while Lakhan, who allegedly intervened during the dragging, was not examined without explanation. Non-examination of such material witnesses warranted an adverse inference. Against the medical findings and these evidentiary gaps, the last-seen account was unacceptable. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and appellate judgment were set aside, the appellant acquitted and immediate release directed unless custody was required in another case. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and High Court judgment set aside. Appellant acquitted and to be released immediately unless required in another case.