SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1047

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.
Kusal Toppo & Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1691-1692 of 2010
Decided On : 07-08-2018

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Extra judicial confession – A weak piece of evidence, that too without corroboration – Accused cannot be convicted on basis of such evidence. (Para 16, 19)

       (2008) 17 SCC 128; (2011) 10 SCC 165; (2012) 6 SCC 403; (2012) 11 SCC 768; (2013) 12 SCC 503; (2015) 12 SCC 644; (1997) 8 SCC 158; (1988) Supp SCC 526; (2009) 6 SCC 564; (2018) 11 SCC 300 – Relied upon

       AIR 1964 SC 1184 : (1964) 2 CrLJ 344; AIR 2012 SC 364 – Referred

       (b) Indian Evidence Act – Section 27 – Instantly only one rope was recovered – A common material – No forensic report connecting the rope to crime brought ton record – No value can be attached to confession of A3 leading to recovery of the rope. (Para 21)

       (2007) 9 SCC 315; AIR 1970 SC 1934 – Relied upon

       76 I.A. 65 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       Appellants were convicted by trial court u/s 397 IPC.

       The High Court confirmed the conviction.

       Finding of the Court:

       Accused cannot be convicted on basis of uncorroborated extra judicial confession.

       Result: Appeals allowed.

ORDER :

1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal No. 240 of 2002 with Criminal Appeal No. 302 of 2002.

2. These appeals have been filed by Accused No.1 and Accused No.4 questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court on 17 and 18th May, 2002 wherein the accused were convicted for the offence under Section 392 and were sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and also convicted for the offence under Section 302 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years each.

3. The judgment passed by the trial Court was subsequently challenged before the High Court. The High Court also confirmed the sentence and conviction passed by the trial Court.

4. In the present case there were as many as five accused. A-5 was acquitted by the trial Court itself. The other two accused A-2 and A-3 had filed Special leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 2572-2573 of 2009 against the judgment and order of the High Court, which were dismissed by this Court at the time of admission itself. In criminal cases, it is well settled that a dismissal of a SLP in limine, would neither mean that the lower court judgment stands affirmed nor the principle res judicata would be applicable [refer Kunhayammed and Anr. v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587; State of Punjab v. Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, AIR 2012 SC 364]. Therefore, the dismissal of the SLP of the co-accused will not have any effect accordingly.

5. In the instant special leave petitions filed by the accused A-1 and A-4, leave was granted by this Court on 30.8.2010.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. The prosecution story in brief is that on 3.12.1999, Truck No. BR-24-M-8171 had gone to Balrampur having loaded the lac of one Adit Sah of Latehar. The truck was returning from Balrampur after unloading the lac in question on 4.12.1999 and reached Ranchi at 4 P.M. The aforesaid truck had picked up its owner Sita Devi from Seva Sadan, Ranchi and proceeded for Latehar. When the truck did not reach Latehar till the morning of 5/12/1999, PW-2, Binod Agrawal (the joint owner of the truck and brother-in-law of Sita Devi, and the informant in this case) tried to search for the truck; in the course of his search he went to the Line Hotel, owned by PW-1, Bindeshwar Sah, situated at Ranchi Road, Kuru where the truck usually used to stop for refreshment for its staff. The informant learnt from the aforesaid hotel owner that his truck had stopped at the hotel on 4.12.1999 at about 6.45 p.m. The driver, Suresh Singh @ Bulet Singh, and the Khalasi (i.e., cleaner of the truck), Jitendra Thakur, had taken four cups of special tea, one for their employer Sita Devi, two for themselves and one for a third person in the truck, but the third person did not take tea and the same was returned. The driver was heard to say that A-2, Mahendra, the third person inside the truck, would not take tea. Thereafter, the truck proceeded for its destination, having taken the owner Sita Devi, the Khalasi Jitendra Thakur, and the third person, Mahendra (apart from the driver himself). The informant also came to know from the hotel owner that an unknown person aged about 25 years had also come to the hotel at 5.00 p.m. on 4.12.1999, who had enquired from the hotel owner whether Suresh Singh @ Bulet Singh, the driver, had come to the hotel with the truck. The hotel owner had replied to the unknown person that the truck had not reached yet. Subsequently, the informant gathered information from others at Kuru that the truck had crossed Kuru Chowk for its destination (i.e. Latehar), but it was hijacked by some criminals near Kuru P.S. and taken away towards the forest. He





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top