IMPORTANT POINT
Where extra-judicial confession was made to a person not known to accused earlier and no apparent reason why accused would repose confidence in such person, such extra-judicial confession could not be believed.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302/34 — Deceased a businessman collected dues from various parties left for bus stand to board bus — Missing report of deceased was lodged on 19-9-1999 at 7.20 P.M. — On 20-9-1999 morning dead body of deceased was noticed behind boundry wall of a building near road — Appellants, rickshaw pullers approached PW11 a social worker, made extra-judicial confession in crime before him, and were arrested by police — PW19 running a rehri stated to have provided meals to deceased at about 9.30 P.M. and deceased being under influence of liquor and a rickshaw puller took him from there and he identified one of appellants who used to come to rehri for taking meals — PW 24, a tea vendor, stated to have served tea to deceased who came with appellants on 18-9-1999 at about 10.30 P.M. to his tea stall — Trial Court convicted appellants and High Court upheld the conviction — Appeal — No evidence how appellant knew PW11 and why they would make confession before him and they accompany him to police station — What statements were made by appellants by way of extra-judicial confession were not disclosed — It was unlikely that accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew — No charge u/s 397 IPC was framed against appellants and no recovery was made from them — Glaring discrepancies in regard to date and time of recovery of dead body — Evidence of PW19 and PW24 of deceased last seen in company of appellant was not trustworthy — Conviction was liable to be set aside.
       Held : It is really a matter of great surprise that even though the appellants had allegedly confessed their guilt, they would willingly be accompanying PW-11 to the police station. It is again a matter of surprise that they would be meeting the Investigating Officer on the way. We wonder as to how the said Chander Prakash (PW-11) could know that Inspector Moti Ram (PW-25) was the Investigating Officer of the case. He did not say that the appellants gave a vivid description of the deceased so as to enable the said Chander Prakash to make a guess that the case related to the murder of Satish Kumar Mehra. It is also significant to note that as to what statements were made by the appellants by way of extra-judicial confessions had not been disclosed. It is wholly unlikely that all the three appellants would make a joint statement. PW-11 did not disclose as to whether any of the appellants made the statements before him or all of them gave statements one after the other.(Para 15)
       It is wholly unlikely that the accused would make extra-judicial confession to a person whom they never knew. It also appears to be wholly improbable that unknown persons would come to seek his help unless he was known to be close to the police officers. His statements, thus, do not even otherwise inspire confidence. (Para 16)
       We have also noticed two glaring discrepancies in regard to the date and time of recovery of the dead body. The evidence of Ramanand (PW-19) and Vinod Kumar (PW-24) who had allegedly last seen the deceased in the company of appellant Ram Asre is not at all trustworthy. It is furthermore difficult to accept the statement of PW-24 that the deceased would come to his shop from the side of Sector 17 kacha rasta for having tea along with all the appellants. A businessman would not ordinarily go to a small tea shop to take his tea. It is wholly unlikely that he would take tea together with a rickshaw puller. It would be absurd to suggest that he would go to a shop to take tea with all the appellants together, who are all rickshaw pullers. He was a resident of Delhi. There was hardly any likelihood that he would personally know the appellants herein. Even if it be assumed that he had been moving from place to place in a rickshaw, the prosecution should have brought some evidence to show that he had hired the rickshaw of either Ram Asre or any other appellant.(Para 22)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. — These appeals arising out of the same judgment were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellants are rickshaw pullers. They were charged for committing murder of one Satish Kumar Mehra. He was a businessman. He used to run a proprietory firm known as M/s. Kala Udyog, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The firm used to supply saris and other garments to the shopkeepers. He on or about 18.9.1999 came to Chandigarh to collect his dues from the businessmen to whom he had supplied saris. He visited the shop of one Pankaj Gulati in Sector 22-C, Chandigarh at about 7.30 p.m. on the same day. He allegedly prior thereto had collected a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in cash and a cheque amounting to Rs.40,000/- from M/s. Amarsons Shop situated in Sector 22, Chandigarh and also diverse sums from others including Praveen Gulati and Satish Kumar Gulati. He left for the bus stand to board a bus to reach Delhi. Praveen Gulati and Satish Kumar Gulati, however, received a telephone call from Nirmal Mehra, brother of Satish Kumar Mehra, at about 11.30 a.m. that he had not reached Delhi. Praveen Gulati enquired about him from other dealers. When he was informed that Satish Kumar Mehra had not reached Delhi, he was requested to make a report in that behalf to police, pursuant whereto a report was made by him which was recorded as DDR No. 23 at about 7.20 p.m. on 19.9.1999. The SHO of the police station received a wireless message in the morning of 20.9.1999 that a dead body had been noticed behind the boundary wall of Udyog Bhawan, near the road of Sector 17/18. The Investigating Officer along with SI Janak Singh, ASI Hira Lal, ASI Harinder Singh, ASI Parmjit Kaur, Constable Pawan Kumar 161, Constable Paramjit Singh 439, Constable Jai Bhagwan 1556 reached the spot. It was found that the dead body of one person was lying in the ditch of water and his articles were seen nearby. The articles consisted of driving licence on which photo and address of the deceased Satish Kumar Mehra was noticed whereupon Praveen Gulati who had lodged the DDR No. 23 dated 19.9.1999 was sent for. Praveen Gulati identified the dead body as that of Satish Kumar Mehra. A First Information Report was thereupon lodged as against unknown for commission of an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The brother of the deceased Nirmal Mehra also reached Chandigarh. He is also said to have identified the dead body of Satish Kumar Mehra.

3. The appellants allegedly approached one Chander Prakash (PW-11) who is said to be a social worker. They had already told PW-11 that they believed that the police was on the look-out for them. According to him, they came in a rickshaw and sought for his help. While they were being taken to the police station by PW-11, the police party met them. They were arrested as they were said to have made extra-judicial confessions about their involvement in the crime before PW-11. They made confessions while they were in the police custody. They are said to have made further confession which led to the alleged recovery of two rickshaws. The appellants were on the aforementioned basis put to trial.

4. Before the learned Sessions Judge, apart from the traders from whom the deceased had collected the amount, the first informant and the brother of the deceased, inter alia three other witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.

5. PW-19 was one Ramanand who was working with one Gian Chand who was running a `rehri. The rickshaw pullers and the passengers of the bus stand allegedly used to take their meals there. He was examined in court on 19.2.2002. He was illiterate. According to him, about two-and-a-half years back at about 9.30 p.m. one person had come at his rehri for taking dinner. The said person was said to be under the influence of liquor. After taking his meals, he paid a sum of Rs. 20/-. Allegedly at some distance, a rickshaw puller took him from the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 452

IMPORTANT POINTWhere extra-judicial confession was made to a person not known to accused earlier and no apparent reason why accused would repose confidence in such person, such extra-judicial confession could not be believed.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where extra-judicial confession was made to a person not known to accused earlier and no apparent reason why accused would repose confidence in such person, such extra-judicial confession could not be believed.