The Supreme Court has observed that extra-judicial confession made by co-accused could be admitted in evidence only for corroboratin.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M. Trivedi that an extra judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
Brief Facts of the Case
Kumari Bindabai of the Kumhar caste and Kanhaiya Siddar resident of Panjhar village and Siddar (gaur caste) were in a love affair and went missing on 02.12.1994, no missing report was lodged and
on 11.12.1994 at about 9:00 am the bodies of Kumari Brinda and Kanhaiya were found hanging on a cashew tree, the bodies were decomposed and non-identifiable but were identified by the informant Chandrapal. The post-mortem report stated that the death had occurred within 8-10 days, the cause of death appeared to be Asphyxia due to hanging and the nature of the death was suicidal. The prosecution on 02.12.1994 the deceased Kanhaiya was sitting at the premises of village Panchayat after that he left that place to head to the hand pump to rub his axe, after that Kanhaiya was called over by the accused Chandrapal at his house where the deceased was locked in a room and all the accused i.e., Bhagirathi, Chandrapal, Mangal Singh and Videshi in furtherance of their common intention pressed his neck and committed his murder.
Thereafter, the accused Mangal Singh and Videshi committed the murder of Kumari Brinda. After committing their murders, they kept the dead bodies of Kanhaiya and Brinda in the house upto 04.12.1994 and then took the dead bodies to Kajubadi. The accused thereafter hanged the dead bodies of both the deceased by tying the noose in their necks with the tree of cashew in the Kajubadi and attempted to give it the shape of their having committed suicide.
Supreme Court's Observation
In this case the four accused were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. Allowing the appeal filed by three of them viz Bhagirathi, Mangal Singh and Videshi, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside their conviction and sentence imposed on them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, but confirmed their conviction for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Chandrapal and therefore he approached the Apex Court.
In appeal, it was contended that there were major contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as regards the alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused Videshi before them
and thus his conviction cannot be based on the extra judicial confession made by the co-accused, which is of a very weak kind of evidence. In this regard, the State contended that there was other
corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution which conclusively proved the entire chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant.
The court noted that as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself
and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. The court
observed that an extra judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution
evidence.
"However, this court has consistently held that an extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession. As held in case of State of M.P Through C.B.I. Vs. Paltan Mallah, 2005 Latest Caselaw 51 SC, the extra judicial confession made by the co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co-accused",
the court added.
The Court opined that if a weak piece of evidence of the co-accused Videshi was not duly proved or found trustworthy for holding the other co-accused guilty of committing murder of the deceased Brinda and Kanhaiya, the High Court could not have used the said evidence against the present appellant for the purpose of holding him guilty for the alleged offence.
On the contention regarding "Last Seen Together" theory, the bench statd that in view of Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab in absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the accused cannot be onvicted merely on the basis of the theory of "Last Seen Together", together”, even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed.
The Court found that the theory of "Last Seen Theory" doesn't establish in the present case.
"In order to convict an accused under Section 302 IPC the first and foremost aspect to be proved by prosecution is the factum of homicidal death. If the evidence of prosecution falls short of
proof of homicidal death of the deceased, and if the possibility of suicidal death could not be ruled out, in the opinion of this court, the appellant-accused could not have been convicted merely on the basis of the theory of “Last seen together”"
Case Title: Chandrapal vs State of Chhattisgarh
Case Details: Criminal Appeal No(s).378/2015
Coram: Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
