1. Abduction and murder of two individuals — Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC — Appeal against commutation of death sentence to life imprisonment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 1082
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Punchhi, M.K. Mukherjee & K Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.
Mahabir Biswas & Anr. - Appellants
versus
State of West Bengal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1991
Decided on 28.10.1994
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any other substantive & reliable evidence against an accused, confession of co-accused can not be called in aid.
In absence of any other substantive & reliable evidence against an accused, confession of co-accused can not be called in aid.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/ 34 - Prosecution case resting on retracted confessions of appellant & certain discovery made pursuant to statement of accused - Confession, before it can be acted upon must be established to have been made voluntarily & is true Question whether confession is voluntary or not is a question of fact & when both courts below on proper discussion of material held it to be true, no reason to disturb that finding Retraction from confession found by trial Court to be baseless - Discovery of sword used in commission of offence & watch of victim at the instance of appellant corroborate his confession - Confession can be safely & fully relied upon to uphold his conviction. (paras 7, 8, 10 to 12)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302/ 34 - Conviction based on confessional statements of two co-accused & discovery of silver ring of deceased pursuant to statement of appellant - Confession of co-accused can be pressed into service only to lend assurance to other substantive & reliable evidence - Recovery of ring made almost 6 months after murder not connecting appellant with offence of murder, confession of co-accused can not be called in aid - Conviction is unsustainable.
(paras 9 & 14)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Amrendra Bal, D.B.VOHRA, DILIP SINHA, J.R.DAS, TAPAS RAY
Amrendra Bal, D.B.VOHRA, DILIP SINHA, J.R.DAS, TAPAS RAY
Table of Contents
2. Defense of innocence and false implication based on political rivalry. (Para 4 )
3. Confession of one appellant corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of victim's property, while evidence against the other appellant was insufficient. (Para 5 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 )
4. Retracted confessions require corroboration; confessions of co-accused can only fortify other substantive evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed for the first appellant and allowed for the second appellant, who is ordered to be released. (Para 15 )
6. What is the evidentiary value of a retracted judicial confession?
A court may convict an accused on a confession even if retracted, provided it is established to be voluntary and true. However, courts usually require some corroboration, the amount of which is a question of fact determined by the circumstances of each case. (Para 8 )
7. How can a confession be used against a co-accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act?
The court must first evaluate the evidence excluding the confession. If the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction on its own but is capable of belief, the confession may be used to lend assurance and fortify the court's belief in that evidence. (Para 9 )
8. Does the discovery of an object based on an accused's statement necessarily prove participation in a crime?
No. Knowledge of the location of a concealed object does not automatically prove theft or participation in murder, particularly when the recovery is made long after the crime and there is no other substantive evidence against the accused. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT
M.K. Mukherjee, J. - Mahabir Biswas and Shiba @ Bijoy Krishna Dutta, the two appellants herein, along with six others, including one Amit Haldar @ Pagla, were arraigned before the Court of Session for offences punishable under Sections 364/34, 302/34, 201/34 and 379 I.P.C. On conclusion of the trial the Court, while recording an order of acquittal in favour of four, convicted the other four including the two appellants and Amit Haldar under section 302/34 I.P.C. but acquitted them of the charge under section 201/34 I.P.C. As regards the charges under sections 364/34 I.P.C. and 379 I.P.C. the Court recorded a finding that those were redundant in the facts and circumstances of the case and, as such did not pass any formal order of conviction and sentence in respect of the same. For the conviction under section 302/34 I.P.C. the two appellants were sentenced to death and the other two to imprisonment for life. The reference made to the High Court under section 366 Cr. P.C. for confirmation of the sentence of death and the appeal preferred by the appellants were heard together and by the impugned judgment the High Court while upholding the conviction of the two appellants commuted their sentence to imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal by special leave.
2. Bereft of details the case of the prosecution is asunder. On March 20, 1987 at or about 10.30 P.M. Pabitra Bhattacharjee and Tapan Ghosh (the two victims) along with one Shambhu Debnath were returning to their respective houses in a rickshaw from Naihati Railway Station rickshaw stand after being dropped there by Dr. Tarun Adhikari, the local M.L.A. On the way Shambhu Debnath got down from the rickshaw in front of his house. Immediately thereafter some miscreants led by the two appellants came there, surrounded the two victims, dragged them out of the rickshaw and forcibly took them towards the nearby football ground.
3. Information about the abduction of the two victims was given to the members of their families by Shambhu Debnath on the same night, who In their turn, informed the local police station. Inspite of vigorous searches conducted by the members of the victims families and the police they could not be traced. However, on the following morning, their dead bodies were found lying by the side of a water tank on Adahata Road, Naihati with their hands tied and multiple injuries on their persons. Thereafter on a written complaint lodged by Debaprasad, the younger brother of Pradip, a case was registered and on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant and others alleging that after forcibly taking the victims to the football ground the miscreants tied them with rope, killed them and removed their dead bodies to the nearby water tank.
4. The defence of the appellants, as it can be gathered from the trend of their cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and the statements made by them in their examination under section 313, Cr. P.C., was one of innocence and of false implication due to political rivalry.
5. That the dead bodies of the two victims were found lying on Adahata Road in the early morning of March 31, 1987 and that they met with their death owing to murderous assault stand conclusively proved by overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence on record. In fact, this part of the prosecution case was not serious challenged by the defence. While the evidence of Sunil Bose (P.W. 18) and Ranjit Kumar Bhattacharya (P.W. 20), who were the two witnesses to the inquest (exhibit 3 and 4), besides that of others, proves the find of the dead body, the evidence of Dr. S.K. Ganguli (P.W. 36) who held post mortem examination upon the two dead bodies proves the murder. P.W. 36 found four incised injuries on the mandible, chin and shoulders of Pabitra, besides some bruises and abrasions. In his opinion the death was due to the shock and haemorrhage caused by the incised injuries which were ante mortem and homicidal in nature. When shown the
