2009 Supreme(SC) 988

2009(4) Supreme 497
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Baldev Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 553 of 2008
Decided on : 06-05-2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Evidence of extra judicial confession is generally of a weak nature. No conviction ordinarily can be based solely thereupon unless the same is corroborated in material particulars.
2. An offence of conspiracy which is a separate and distinct offence, requires .involvement of more than one person.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 120B – Prosecution of appellant for entering into a conspiracy with two others for murdering his brother – Prosecution case that appellant master minded his brother’s murder by convincing A, a fellow jailmate, to also join H for causing death of deceased by firing gun shots at him – Conviction of appellant by Trial Court – Appeal – Dismissed by High Court – Appeal – An offence of conspiracy which is a separate and distinct offence, requires involvement of more than one person – However since in the instant case neither A nor H were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B IPC – Hence appellant alone could not have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC – So far as purported extra judicial confession made by “A” before P.W.22 was concerned “A” allegedly visited P.W.22 on 18.2.2001 at about 9.00 a.m. and for no apparent reason, he disclosed that he along with H committed murder of deceased – No details thereof were furnished – A purported disclosure was also made that murder was committed at the instance of the appellant – “A” was asked to come on the next day but he neither visited P.W.22 thereafter nor was he produced before the police by P.W.22 – Nothing on record to show that such a purported extra judicial confession by “A” was conveyed to police authorities; P.W. 22’s statement having been recorded on 19.2.2001 – If P.W.22 was so familiar with family of “A” , there was absolutely no reason whey he was not in a position to state as to what was composition of his family – P.W.22 admitted that he had never visited village of “A” – Extra judicial confession must be found to be reliable – P.W. 22 was examined by police authorities also in some other cases – A suggestion was put to him that he was a police tout – His evidence, hence , could not be relied upon – If his evidence could not be relied upon, same could not have formed foundation of recording a judgment of conviction and sentence and that too in a case of conspiracy – Impugned judgment being unsustainable set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 9 to 11)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Appellant herein in the instant case was convicted for entering into a conspiracy with two others for murdering his brother. On appeal, High Court upheld conviction.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of conviction.

       Findings of the Court :

        An offence of conspiracy which is a separate and distinct offence, requires involvement of more than one person. However since in the instant case neither A nor H were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 120B IPC-Hence appellant alone could not have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC.So far as purported extra judicial confession made by “A” before P.W.22 was concerned “A” allegedly visited P.W.22 on 18.2.2001 at about 9.00 a.m and for no apparent reason, he disclosed that he along with H committed murder of deceased. No details thereof were furnished. A purported disclosure was also made that murder was committed at the instance of the appellant.” A” was asked to come on the next day but he neither visited P.W.22 thereafter nor was he produced before the police by P.W.22. Nothing on record to show that such a purported extra judicial confession by “A” was conveyed to police authorities; P.W. 22’s statement having been recorded on 19.2.2001. If P.W.22 was so familiar with family of “A” , there was absolutely no reason whey he was not in a position to state as to what was composition of his family. P.W.22 admitted that he had never visited village of “A” .Extra judicial confession must be found to be reliable. P.W. 22 was examined by police authorities also in some other cases. A suggestion was put to him that he was a police tout. His evidence, hence , could not be relied upon. If his evidence could not be relied upon, same could not have formed foundation of recording a judgment of conviction and sentence and that too in a case of conspiracy. Impugned judgment being unsustainable was set aside.

       Result : Appeal allowed.