Summary
A murder conviction was set aside because the alleged extra-judicial confession and oral dying declaration were unreliable, and the remaining hostile-witness evidence did not connect the appellant to the killing. Uninvestigated telephone calls, the withholding of a crucial police witness and conflicting accounts of custody undermined the confession case. The appellant was acquitted and directed to be released unless required elsewhere.
Issues
- Whether the employer’s account proved a reliable extra-judicial confession.
- Whether the alleged dying declaration was supported by trustworthy evidence.
- Whether parts of hostile witnesses’ testimony connected the appellant to the murder.
Provisions considered
- Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The alleged confession made before the police officer could not be proved against the appellant. The separate alleged telephone confession to the employer was also rejected as factually unreliable. (¶ 7)
Held
- An extra-judicial confession ordinarily calls for a relationship of confidence and credible surrounding circumstances. Here the employer had known the appellant for only a short period; the alleged telephone numbers were not investigated, and the claimed subsequent meeting was inconsistent with police evidence. The confession account was unsafe to accept. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- The police officer said to have received the employer’s call, witnessed the later confession and taken the appellant into custody was neither examined nor even questioned during investigation. The arrest records and investigating officer’s inconsistent account left the manner of apprehension doubtful. Withholding that crucial witness further undermined the employer’s version. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The alleged oral dying declaration did not inspire confidence: its witness repudiated the material prior police statement and admitted that the injured man was unconscious when placed in the vehicle. The landlord also stated there was no conversation while the deceased was taken to hospital. (¶¶ 9, 10)
- Reading the hostile witnesses’ testimony in full revealed no reliable evidence linking the appellant to the murder. Assertions about seeing him depart or clean blood were withdrawn or contradicted in cross-examination, and another witness could not identify him. Isolated answers did not sustain the prosecution case. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The conviction and life sentence were set aside and the appellant acquitted. He was to be released unless detention was required in another case. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and appellant acquitted. Release directed unless required in another case.