Summary
A villager in Chhattisgarh was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34 IPC for the 2003 throttling of a shopkeeper, on an alleged extra-judicial confession to two co-villagers, prior animosity over a shop, and recovery of the shop keys and Rs. 300 at his instance; the High Court acquitted the co-accused but affirmed his conviction. The Supreme Court acquitted him: one confession witness did not support the prosecution and the other was himself a suspect detained by police who told no one for hours; the deceased's father admitted there had never been any quarrel, negating motive; the recoveries were uncorroborated and the articles never sent for analysis; the investigating officer examined no neighbours and admitted having no direct evidence. Suspicion cannot replace proof, and the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda tests were not met.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder can rest on an extra-judicial confession deposed to by a witness who was himself a suspect, unproved motive and uncorroborated recoveries, where the investigation was casual and the chain of circumstances incomplete.
Provisions considered
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The confessional statement to the investigating officer was inadmissible beyond any fact discovered, and it led to no new discovery since the shop, the animosity and the place of the body were already known to the police; the alleged recovery of keys and cash was not even recorded in the case diary or panchnama. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and life sentence set aside as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 3, 28, 29)
Held
- Following Sahadevan, an extra-judicial confession is weak evidence requiring great caution and corroboration; here one of the two witnesses turned hostile and the other, who was detained by police and admitted telling no one until late the next day despite living near the scene, was neither reliable nor trustworthy, and his wife confirmed he had been a suspect. (¶¶ 12, 19, 21)
- The father of the deceased, the only witness to motive, admitted no quarrel had ever taken place and had not mentioned animosity in the complaint; his grandson's and other witnesses' accounts that the police told them who the culprits were belie his testimony; the shop owner did not support the prosecution. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The investigating officer recorded no statements about animosity, did not examine neighbours living thirty to seventy metres from the spot, admitted the investigation concluded without direct evidence of time or manner, and prepared no record of the recovered keys; the investigation was shady and casual, and where two views are possible on circumstantial evidence the one favouring the accused must be adopted. Interference with concurrent findings is warranted where gross errors cause miscarriage of justice. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)
Result
Appeal allowed; trial court judgment dated 28.08.2004 as affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court on 21.07.2017 set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.