Summary
The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for strangling his relative and burning the body in his house, after the deceased proposed the remarriage of the appellant's widowed sister. The case rested on an extra-judicial confession said to have been made to the deceased's two brothers, and on recovery of ash in a plastic bag. The Court found the brothers' conduct improbable. After finding the body they raised no alarm and told no one in a village surrounded by houses, and passed several police stations without reporting. No independent witness was examined. An uncorroborated extra-judicial confession is unsafe, and the disclosure was made in the lock-up without independent witnesses. The post-mortem neither identified the body nor established homicide. As the chain of circumstances was incomplete, the appellant was acquitted.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder could rest on an extra-judicial confession to the deceased's relatives and a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act where the witnesses' conduct was doubtful and the body was not identified.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions for murder and causing disappearance of evidence were set aside because the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain pointing only to guilt. (¶¶ 1, 21, 22)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The recovery of ash on the appellant's disclosure was of no help, as the statement was recorded in the lock-up and no independent panch witness was called although available. (¶¶ 13, 17)
Held
- After seeing the body, the two brothers raised no alarm, told no one in a village with houses around, and went back to their own village. They returned that afternoon without reporting to any of several police stations on the way, though one was about 1.5 km away. Their claim not to have noticed a killing and burning during the night was also hard to believe. Their conduct cast serious doubt on their version, and no independent witness was examined. (¶¶ 10, 11, 14)
- An extra-judicial confession must be used with restraint and is to be corroborated, especially where the case otherwise rests on circumstantial evidence. It was unsafe to convict solely on the confession allegedly made to these witnesses. (¶¶ 15, 16)
- The disclosure leading to recovery of ash was made in the police lock-up without independent panch witnesses, though available. The post-mortem doctor admitted the body was unrecognisable, and the post-mortem did not establish homicide. (¶¶ 7, 17)
- In a case on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt and form a chain excluding every other hypothesis, following Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that chain was not established. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
Result
Appeal allowed. The convictions and sentences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC are set aside, the appellant is acquitted and his bail bonds discharged.