Supreme Court of India was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 1812 of 1998.
Brief Facts:
The Trial Court convicted four suspects in this case, namely Bhagirathi, Chandrapal, Mangal Singh, and Videshi, under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Allowing the appeal filed by three of them, Bhagirathi, Mangal Singh, and Videshi, the Chhattisgarh High Court set aside their conviction and sentence imposed under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC, but confirmed their conviction for the offence under section 201 read with section 34 of the IPC. After the High Court dismissed Chandrapal's appeal, he petitioned the Supreme Court.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that conviction cannot be based on the extra judicial confession made by the co-accused, which is of a very weak kind of evidence. Repelling the theory of ‘Last seen theory’, he submitted that the statement of PW1 Dhansingh who had allegedly last seen Kanhaiya, having been called by the present appellant, was recorded after 4 months of the incident. He further submitted that the doctor who had performed
the post-mortem had also opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging and the nature was suicidal. Thus, in absence of any clear or cogent evidence against the appellant, both the courts had committed gross error in convicting the appellant.
Respondent’s Contention:
While fairly agreeing that an extra judicial confession would be a weak piece of evidence, he submitted that there was other corroborative evidence adduced by the prosecution which conclusively proved the entire chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the present appellant. According to him, the concerned doctor who had carried out the post-mortem had also opined that the death of the deceased could be homicidal death also.
SC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides SC stated that for the purpose of proving the charge for the offence under Section 302, the prosecution must establish “homicidal death” as a primary fact. In order to convict an accused under Section 302, the court is required to first see as to whether the prosecution has proved the factum of homicidal death.
SC stated that at this juncture, it may be noted that as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act, when more persons than one is 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. 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.
SC relied upon the case of State of M.P. Through CBI & Ors. vs. Paltan Mallah & Ors., where the SC held that 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.
SC stated that 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, the appellant accused could not have been convicted merely on the basis of the theory of “Last seen together”.
SC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the SC held that “High Court had committed gross error in convicting the appellant-accused for the alleged charge of 302 read with 34 of IPC, relying upon a very weak kind of evidence of extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused Videshi, and relying upon the theory of “Last seen together” propounded by the PW-1 Dhansingh. It is also significant to note that no evidence worth the name as to how and by whom the deceased Brinda was allegedly murdered was produced by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, it is required to be held that the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.”
Case Title: Chandrapal v. State of Chhattisgarh
Bench: J. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and J. Bela M. Trivedi
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2015
Decided on: 27th May, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :