Back
2010 (5) Supreme 629
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, JJ.
Podyami Sukada — Appellant
versus
State of M.P (Now Chhattisgarh) — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2006
Decided on : 23-7-2010
Extra Judicial Confession- Evidentiary value of -Evidentiary value of extra judicial confession depends upon trustworthiness of the witness before whom confession is made- Law does not contemplate that the evidence of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated- It is not an inflexible rule that in no case conviction can be based solely on extrajudicial confession- It is basically in the realm of appreciation of evidence and a question of fact to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 10)
Facts of the Case :
Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of his mother by assaulting her with a burning wooden plank. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence on the basis of extrajudicial confession coupled with the recovery of weapon of crime at the instance of appellant. Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court
2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that PW.2, and PW.4, neither in the examination-in-chief nor in cross-examination had stated anything about the extrajudicial confession said to have been made by appellant. PW.1,and PW.3, in the examination-in-chief did not support the case of the prosecution and after being declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution did say about the extrajudicial confession by appellant but again on cross-examination by defence they admitted that no such confession was made by the appellant. Thus evidence of prosecution witnesses was slippery and from their evidence, it was difficult to hold with certainty that any extra judicial confession in fact was made by appellant. Hence witnesses of extrajudicial confession not inspired confidence and merely on the ground of recovery of weapon of crime at the instance of the appellant, it was held unsafe to sustain conviction of appellant. Appellant was held entitled to benefit of doubt. Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellant was set aside. Appeal was allowed
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
C.K. Prasad, J. —
1.This appeal, by grant of leave arises from the judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2005 passed by the Chhatisgarh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.936 of 2000, whereby it had upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and punishment of life imprisonment inflicted by Order dated 18th February 2000, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar in Sessions Trial No.45 of 2000.
2.According to the prosecution, on 9th December, 1999 Madvi Pali, went to the house of Madvi Mase to borrow money and when she reached there, she found her dead. She informed PW.1, Madvi Rama about the incident. Madvi Rama went to the house of Madvi Mase and found her dead with wounds at different places on the body. PW.1, Madvi Rama, according to the prosecution, convened a meeting and on enquiry, the appellant confessed in the meeting that in the night of 8th December, 1999 his mother (deceased)-Madvi Mase scolded him alleging that he wanders after consuming liquor which enraged him and he picked up a burning wooden plank and assaulted her which caused her death. On the basis of what has been disclosed in the meeting PW.1 Madvi Rama gave report to the Police Station, Tongpal.
3.On the basis of the aforesaid information, a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellant. During the course of investigation inquest report of the dead body was prepared in the presence of the witnesses and the dead body sent to Primary Health Centre, Tongpal for postmortem examination. Dr. S.L. Dhangar(PW.5), a Civil Assistant Surgeon, posted at the Primary Health Centre, Tongpal conducted the postmortem examination and found a large number of burn injuries on the person of the deceased and in his opinion the death had occurred due to shock on account of burn injuries. PW.6, P.L. Nayak, the Investigating Officer of the case arrested the appellant during the course of investigation and on his statement, the wooden plank, alleged to have been used in the commission of the crime, was recovered.
4.After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions to face the trial for commission of the above said crime. Appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.
5.To bring home the charge, the prosecution has altogether examined six witnesses out of whom PW.1 Madvi Rama, PW.2 Mangdu, PW.3 Aaita and PW.4 Lekhan have been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. Besides aforesaid witnesses, prosecution has also examined P.W.5 Dr. S.L. Dhangar, the autopsy surgeon and P.W.6 P.L. Nayak, the investigating officer. The plea of the appellant is denial simplicitor and false implication but no defence witness has been examined.
6.On the basis of evidence on record the trial court came to the conclusion that Madvi Mase met with a homicidal death, which finding has been affirmed by the High Court in appeal. Further relying on the extrajudicial confession and recovery of the weapon of crime at the instance of the appellant the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as above and it has been maintained by the High Court in appeal. Relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court in this regard reads as follows:
“In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that extrajudicial confession regarding causing death of his mother attacking her with the teak wood plank was made by the accused before the Panchayat, this evidence of extrajudicial confession by accused before these witnesses inspire confidence of the Court as the same stands corroborated by F.I.R. Ex.P.1 Recovery of weapon of offence as well as medical evidence also corroborates the confession. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 is based on the legal evidence and we do not find any circumstance to differ from the view taken by the Tri
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
