IMPORTANT POINT
Accused should not be convicted on the sole circumstance of the extra-judicial confession which was suspiciously full of facts.

JUDGMENT :

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

We have heard Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the common judgment and order dated 16.06.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of Criminal Appeals filed by the accused, confirming the judgment dated 07.02.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, FTC 2, Salem, Tamil Nadu in S.C. No. 5 of 2006 to the extent that it convicted the appellant/Accused No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “the IPC”) and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

3. The brief facts relating to this appeal are as under:-

The deceased Ramamurthy was working as a Collection Agent in New Centurion Bank at Salem. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had availed vehicle loans from the said Bank to purchase two motor cycles. However, such loans were not repaid on time. The deceased Ramamurthy used to pressurise both the accused to repay the loans. Despite the same, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 failed to repay the same and started avoiding him. About six months prior to the incident in question, the deceased Ramamurthy had taken away both the vehicles of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 without informing them, in order to pressurise them to repay their loans. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached the deceased for the return of these vehicles, but he refused to oblige, saying that he would return the vehicles only once they repaid the loans. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were inimically disposed towards the deceased Ramamurthy in that regard. They sought the help of the other accused and conspired with them to do away with the life of the deceased Ramamurthy.

On 14.5.2005, Accused No. 1, along with the other accused, called the deceased Ramamurthy over phone to the place of the incident on the pretext of repaying the loans. The deceased reached the place and immediately thereafter, all the accused pushed the deceased inside the Maruti van owned by one of the accused, took him away and killed him. Thereafter, the dead body was thrown near the house of an advocate at Salem.

4. On the next day, P.W.18, the Village Administrative Officer, upon receiving information about an unidentified dead body, went to the location, saw the dead body and lodged the first information report.

The Trial Court convicted all the accused, whereas the High Court retained the conviction of the appellant herein under Section 302 of the IPC and acquitted all the other accused persons, as well as the appellant of all other charges.

5. The case of the prosecution is mainly based on the extra-judicial confession of the accused. Both P.W.8, who had allegedly seen the accused abducting the deceased Ramamurthy, and P.W. 11, who spoke about the alleged conspiracy, turned hostile. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as under:-

(a) Motive for commission of the offence, as deposed to by P.W.2.

(b) Accused were seen abducting the deceased by P.W.8.

(c) Conspiracy amongst the accused, deposed to by P.W.11.

(d) Recovery of the Maruti van, weapon and the blood stained clothes of Accused No. 1, based on the confession made by Accused No. 1 before the police. The circumstance of recovery is deposed to by P.W.18.

(e) The extra-judicial confession spoken to and recorded by P.W.12.

It is noteworthy to mention that the High Court has disbelieved all the circumstances except the extra-judicial confession.

6. To satisfy our conscience, we have gone through the entire material. We do not find any reason to disagree with the High Court, inasmuch as it has rightly concluded that the circumstances of motive, abduction by accused, conspiracy and recovery are not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

As mentioned supra, P.W.8, who had allegedly seen the abduction, and P.W.11, who initially deposed with respect to the conspiracy, turned hostile. The High Court has also rightly disbelieved the aspect o