Summary
A man was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 IPC for the 1989 murder of two missing boys in Bihar solely on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made to villagers, who then accompanied him to a field where the bodies were dug up; the Patna High Court confirmed his conviction while acquitting four co-accused. The Supreme Court acquitted him: six of the nine confession witnesses, including the father of one boy, turned hostile; the three who supported the prosecution were strangers in whom the accused had no reason to confide, were inconsistent about where and when the confession was made, did not report it to the police, and one claimed to have heard him confess two weeks earlier yet stayed silent; the landowner present was not examined and the investigating officer was not examined. With no corroboration, the confession deserved to be discarded.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for murder can rest solely on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made to villagers who were strangers to the accused, where the majority of the confession witnesses turned hostile, the supporting witnesses were inconsistent and did not report to the police, and no other corroborative circumstance was proved.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 read with 34 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and life sentence set aside as the only evidence, the extra-judicial confession, did not inspire confidence and there was admittedly no other evidence against the appellant. (¶¶ 1, 7)
- Sections 24 to 30 (extra-judicial confession), Indian Evidence Act, 1872An extra-judicial confession is generally weak evidence; it can sustain a conviction only if proved voluntary, truthful and free of inducement, its value depending on the person to whom it is made, since one normally confides only in a person of implicit faith; corroboration is not a rule but adds credibility. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
Held
- The prosecution did not investigate the source of the secret information that led to the accused; the three supporting witnesses never said they knew the accused or were his relatives or close acquaintances, so nothing showed a relationship in which he would confide; they differed on whether the confession was made at his house or at a neighbour's gate, one witness's claim of having heard him confess days earlier without informing the police though he was the uncle of a victim creates further suspicion, their accompanying him to dig up bodies without informing the police is unnatural, and the landowner in whose field the bodies were found was not examined. (¶¶ 6, 7)
Result
Appeal allowed; judgments of the trial court and of the Patna High Court dated 01.03.2007 set aside; appellant acquitted of all offences and his bail bonds cancelled.