1. Conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, based on an alleged extrajudicial confession and medical evidence of death by asphyxiation. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1993 Supreme(SC) 5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Jayachandra Reddy : S.P.Bharucha
Uttam Sadda
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 240 of 1986
Date of Decision : 1/5/93
A retracted extrajudicial confession is weak evidence. Mere suspicion, regardless of its strength, cannot substitute for legal proof, and the proximity of the accused to the deceased is insufficient to sustain a conviction without further corroborating evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 34 - Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 - Section 14 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 313 - Conviction based on retracted extrajudicial confession - Retracted extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence - Mere fact that accused and deceased were together does not constitute proof of guilt, but only raises suspicion - Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Two individuals were convicted of murder after the deceased, who was staying with them in a room while harvesting crops, was found dead. The post-mortem report indicated that death was caused by the breaking of the rings of the trachea. The conviction by the trial court was based primarily on an extrajudicial confession, which the accused subsequently retracted during their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the entire case rested on a retracted extrajudicial confession, which is a weak piece of evidence. It was noted that the trial judge failed to extract the details of the alleged confession. Furthermore, the medical evidence only established the cause of death and did not implicate the accused. The prosecution's reliance on the fact that the accused and the deceased were together was deemed insufficient to prove guilt.
Issues: Whether a conviction based on a retracted extrajudicial confession, corroborated only by the cause of death and the proximity of the accused to the deceased, is sustainable in law.
Ratio Decidendi: A retracted extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. While the presence of the accused at the scene may raise suspicion, such suspicion, regardless of its strength, cannot substitute for legal proof.
Result: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Prosecution relied on an extrajudicial confession and medical evidence; the defense retracted the confession during trial under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. (Para 2 )
3. Retracted extrajudicial confessions are weak evidence; medical evidence proving cause of death without implicating the accused, and mere presence, only raise suspicion. (Para 3 )
4. A retracted extrajudicial confession, lacking corroboration that directly implicates the accused, is insufficient to sustain a conviction as suspicion cannot replace proof. (Para 3 )
5. Conviction and sentence set aside; appeal allowed and appellants ordered to be set at liberty. (Para 3 )
6. What is the evidentiary value of a retracted extrajudicial confession in a criminal trial?
A retracted extrajudicial confession is considered a weak piece of evidence and is generally insufficient to sustain a conviction unless it is corroborated by other evidence that directly implicates the accused. (Para 3 )
7. Does medical evidence proving the cause of death automatically corroborate the prosecution's case against the accused?
No. Medical evidence that only establishes the cause of death without specifically implicating the accused does not provide sufficient corroboration to prove guilt. (Para 3 )
8. Can the fact that the accused were present with the deceased at the time of death be sufficient for conviction?
No. Mere presence or the fact that the accused were together with the deceased may raise suspicion, but suspicion, regardless of its strength, cannot take the place of legal proof. (Para 3 )
(1) THE two appellants are convicted u/S. 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case is that the two accused along with Itwaro Sadda, the deceased were working with one Avtar Singh pw 2 in harvesting the crop. All the three were putting upjointly in a room of tubewell. It is alleged that on the intervening night on 12/09/1984 the two accused and the deceased slept together. In the next morning the deceased was found dead. Uttam Sadda, one of the appellants next day went to the place of Public Witness 2 in a warned manner and it is alleged that he was taken to Sarpanch Public Witness 7 before whom the two accused were said to have made a confession. The post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the doctor opined that the death was due to the rings of the trachea being broken. On completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was laid.
(2) THE prosecution mainly relied on the extrajudicial confession which was retracted during the trial in the statements of the accused under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Special Judge who tried the case under the Provisions of Terrorist Affected Areas (Special courts) Act, 1984 relying on the retracted extra judicial confession convicted the appellants. This appeal is preferred to this court under Section 14 of the said Act.
(3) HAVING gone through the record, we find that the entire case rests on the retracted extra judicial confession, a weak piece of evidence. The learned Judge has not even extracted the details of the alleged confession. The learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that the medical evidence corrborates the prosecution case. The corroboration we must note, is only to the extent of cause of death, but it does not in any manner implicate the appellants. The only corroborating evidence relied upon by the prosecution is that all the three were together, but in our view, that by itself is not sufficient to bring home the guilt and at the most it may raise suspicion which, however, strong cannot take the place of proof. In the result the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower court are set aside and the two appellants shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. Appeal is allowed.
