1. Conviction for murder and concealing a dead body under Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 790
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Wadhwa : M.K.Mukherjee
Chhotu Singh
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
Case No. : 1953 of 1996
Date of Decision : 8/11/98
Recovery of a dead body under Section 27 of the Evidence Act proves knowledge of the crime and the act of concealment, but without further corroborating evidence, it does not conclusively prove that the accused committed the murder.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Murder and causing disappearance of evidence - Recovery of dead body - Statement made to Investigating Officer - To the extent admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, such statement only proves that the accused buried the dead body knowing that the offence of murder was committed, but in the absence of other material, it does not conclusively prove that the accused committed the murder. (Para 5)
(B) Extra-judicial confession - Retracted confession - Where the primary witness to the confession does not support the prosecution case, the court is not justified in relying upon the retracted extra-judicial confession based solely on the testimony of other witnesses. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant and another individual were tried for the murder of a man and for concealing his dead body in a pit dug on their land. The prosecution's case was based on three circumstances: an alleged illicit relationship between the appellant and the victim's wife, an extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, and the recovery of the dead body pursuant to a statement made by the appellant. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, a decision subsequently upheld by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of an illicit relationship. Regarding the extra-judicial confession, the court held it unreliable as the primary witness did not support the prosecution's case. While the recovery of the body was established, it was determined that this only proved the act of concealment and knowledge of the crime, not the commission of the murder itself.
Issues: Whether the recovery of the dead body and the contested extra-judicial confession, in the absence of other proven circumstances, were sufficient to unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant for the offence of murder.
Ratio Decidendi: A statement leading to the recovery of a body under Section 27 of the Evidence Act establishes that the accused buried the body with knowledge that a murder had been committed, but without additional corroborating material, it is insufficient to prove that the accused is the perpetrator of the murder.
Result: Conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. set aside; conviction and sentence under Section 201, I.P.C. affirmed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether circumstantial evidence—including an illicit relationship, an extra-judicial confession, and recovery of the body—is sufficient to prove guilt for murder. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
3. The court found the illicit relationship unproven, the extra-judicial confession unreliable, and the recovery of the body insufficient to establish the commission of murder. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
4. Recovery of a body under Section 27, Evidence Act, proves knowledge of the crime but does not conclusively prove the accused committed the murder without further evidence. (Para 5 )
5. Conviction under Section 302, Indian Penal Code set aside; conviction and sentence under Section 201, Indian Penal Code affirmed. (Para 5 )
6. When can a retracted extra-judicial confession be relied upon for conviction?
A retracted extra-judicial confession may not be relied upon if the primary witness to the confession does not support the prosecution's case, even if other witnesses testify to its occurrence. (Para 4 )
7. Does the recovery of a dead body based on a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act prove murder?
No, a statement admissible under Section 27 proving the accused buried the body knowing a murder was committed does not conclusively prove the accused committed the murder in the absence of other material evidence. (Para 5 )
(1) CHHOTU Singh, the appellant before us, and one Smt. Phooski were tried by the Sessions Judge, Churu for the murder of Prabhu Ram, husband of Phooski, and for concealing his dead body in a pit dug on their land. The trial ended in conviction of both of them under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved thereby they preferred an appeal "which was dismissed by the High Court. The above order of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the appellant.
(2) IN absence of any eye-witness to the murder the prosecution rested its case upon the following circumstances: (i) The appelland had an illicit relationship with Phooski; (ii) the appellant confessed his guilt to Hanuman (P. W. 9), brother of Phooski, in presence of Beg Singh (P. W. 1 ) and Dhoodh Singh (P. W. 2)-, and (iii) pursuant to the statement made by the appellant the dead body of Prabhu Ram was recovered from a pit dug on their land.
(3) THE Sessions Judge held that the prosecution succeeded in proving all the above three circumstances and as, according to the learned Judge, the circumstances unerringly pointed to the guilt of the appellant, held him guilty of the offences against him. The High Court, however, found that the prosecution failed to prove the first circumstance alleged against the appellant, but concurring with the other findings of the Sessions Judge upheld his conviction.
(4) SINCE we are in complete agreement with the High Court that the prosecution failed to prove the first circumstance the questions that fall for determination are whether the other two circumstances and proved, and if so, whether they taken together unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. So far as the second circumstance is concerned, P. W. 9 did not support the case of the prosecution and, therefore, we feel that we will not bejustified in relying upon the retracted extra-judicial confession on the basis of the testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2.
(5) THAT brings us to the third circumstance. The statement made by the appellant before the Investigating Officer - to the extent it is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act - only proves that he had buried the dead body in the pit knowing that the offence of murder was committed but does not, in absence of any other material, conclusively prove that he committed the murder. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302,I. P. C. but affirm his conviction and sentence under Section 201,I. P. C. The appeal is thus disposed of.
