Summary
The Supreme Court acquitted a man convicted of murdering his live-in partner on the strength of extra-judicial confessions alone. The confession was made while he was in a confused state of mind, the witnesses' accounts were improbable and contained material omissions from their police statements, and there was no corroboration such as blood-stained clothes or a recovered weapon bearing blood.
Issues
- Whether the extra-judicial confessions said to have been made by the appellant before the landlord, the deceased's brother and two others were credible enough to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether material omissions in the witnesses' statements under Section 161 CrPC amounted to contradictions affecting their credibility.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction for murder, resting only on extra-judicial confessions, was set aside because the evidence did not prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 14, 24, 25)
- Section 24, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Following Raja Ram, voluntariness of a confession is judged in the light of Section 24, and a confession is voluntary only if made in a fit state of mind and not caused by inducement, threat or promise. Here the confession before the deceased's brother was made while the accused was confused, so it was not made in a fit state of mind. (¶¶ 17, 20, 22)
- Sections 161 and 162 (Explanation), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Two witnesses said in court that they had told the police about the confession, but their Section 161 statements did not record it. Applying Alauddin and the Explanation to Section 162, under which a significant and relevant omission may amount to a contradiction, the Court treated these as material omissions affecting their credibility. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
Held
- Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be proved, and the proved circumstances must be consistent only with guilt and exclude innocence. If the evidence permits two inferences, the one favouring the accused must be adopted. An extra-judicial confession is one such circumstance. (¶ 16)
- An extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence to be examined with great care. It can found a conviction only if it is voluntary, true, made in a fit state of mind, comes from an unbiased witness, and is free from material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities; corroboration is a rule of prudence, and the confession must be proved like any other fact (Raja Ram, Sansar Chand, Sahadevan). (¶¶ 17, 17.1, 17.2, 18, 19, 19.1, 19.2)
- The confession lacked credibility. The deceased's brother himself said the accused was in a confused state of mind, so the confession was not made in a fit state of mind. It was also improbable that the brother would simply accompany the accused home after hearing him confess to killing his sister, and the brother's wife admitted she had not spoken to the accused directly. (¶¶ 20, 22)
- No corroboration existed: there were no blood stains on the accused's clothes, no blood-stained clothes were seized, there was no evidence that the grinding stone was recovered, and no blood on the stick matched to the deceased. (¶¶ 20, 23)
- The two witnesses' failure to mention the confession in their police statements was a material omission amounting to a contradiction under the Explanation to Section 162 CrPC, and it struck at the root of the prosecution case. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23)
- However strong, suspicion cannot replace proof. It would be unsafe to sustain the conviction on weak and unreliable circumstantial evidence, so the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence, as affirmed by the High Court, set aside; appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.