Summary
The appellant’s conviction for a child’s murder rested on a disputed extra-judicial confession, a questionable recovery of a body from a well and inconsistent circumstantial evidence. The High Court reversed the trial court’s acquittal without identifying perversity or illegality; the Supreme Court restored the acquittal.
Issues
- Whether the alleged extra-judicial confession and recovery of the child’s body were reliable and sufficient links in the circumstantial case against the appellant.
- Whether the High Court could reverse the trial court’s acquittal on a different appreciation of evidence without finding the trial court’s view perverse or legally impermissible.
Provisions considered
- Sections 201, 302, 363 and 364 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant was convicted by the High Court on these charges after the trial court acquitted him. The Supreme Court found the circumstantial chain unreliable and restored the trial court’s acquittal of all charges. (¶¶ 5, 7, 30)
Held
- An extra-judicial confession is weak evidence and must be received with great care. The prosecution must establish that it was made, voluntary and true; its reliability depends on the witness who recounts it and the circumstances in which it was made. Where the case rests on the confession, the standard of scrutiny is especially high and other evidence must support it. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The alleged confession was doubtful: the father did not act on the appellant’s earlier statements; the mother and wife, said to be present at the confession, were not examined; the father gave materially different versions in testimony and in the complaint; and the accounts of when and where the appellant was arrested conflicted. These discrepancies undermined both the confession and its asserted voluntariness. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Although a child’s body was recovered from the well, proof that it was recovered at the appellant’s instance depended on the discredited disclosure and an unreliable witness. The body’s identity was also doubtful because its clothing and description differed from the complaint and the face could not be identified; the post-mortem gave a broad time-of-death range. The recovery did not complete the circumstantial chain. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 24)
- An appellate court may reappraise evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but it cannot reverse merely because it reaches a different view. It must find that the trial court’s view was perverse or illegal, or not a reasonably possible view; where two views are reasonably available, the acquittal and reinforced presumption of innocence favour the accused. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- The circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain consistent only with guilt. The inconsistent confession, doubtful recovery and last-seen evidence, unnatural conduct and other unexplained gaps left reasonable doubt and did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 23, 24, 27, 29)
Result
Appeal disposed of by setting aside the High Court’s conviction and restoring the trial court’s order acquitting the appellant of all charges. He was directed to be released if in custody.