2022 Supreme(SC) 508

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Chandrapal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh (Earlier M.P.) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2015
Decided On : 27-05-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Circumstantial evidence – Conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures.
(2) Extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence – Extra judicial confession made by co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence.
(3) In order to convict an accused under Section 302 IPC first and foremost aspect to be proved by prosecution is factum of homicidal death – Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances concerned “must or should be” established and not “may be” established – Accused “must be” and not merely “may be” guilty before a court can convict him – Conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures – Entire chain of circumstances on which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, should be fully established and should not leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with innocence of accused. (Para 7)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 30 – Extra judicial confession – Evidentiary value – Extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for offence of murder should not be made only on evidence of extra judicial confession – Extra judicial confession made by co-accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence – In absence of any substantive evidence against accused, extra judicial confession allegedly made by co-accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of co-accused – An extra judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (Paras 11 and 12)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 201/34 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Life sentence – Entire case of prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence, as there was no eye witness to alleged incident – For the purpose of proving charge for offence under Section 302, prosecution must establish “homicidal death” as a primary fact – In order to convict an accused under Section 302, court is required to first see as to whether prosecution has proved factum of homicidal death – According to Doctor, death had taken place within 8 to 10 days and nature of death was suicidal – When case of prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence, it was imperative for prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that deaths of deceased were homicidal deaths and not suicidal – If extra judicial confession of co-accused was not duly proved or found trustworthy for holding other co-accused guilty of committing murder of deceased, High Court could not have used said evidence against present appellant for the purpose of holding him guilty for alleged offence – Only on the basis of theory of “Last seen together” propounded by prosecution, it is difficult to connect present appellant with alleged crime, more particularly when there is no other clinching and cogent evidence produced by prosecution – In order to convict an accused under Section 302 IPC first and foremost aspect to be proved by prosecution is factum of homicidal death – If evidence of prosecution falls short of proof of homicidal death of deceased, and if possibility of suicidal death could not be ruled out, appellant-accused could not have been convicted merely on the basis of theory of “Last seen together” – Prosecution had miserably failed to bring home charges levelled against appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt – Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof – Appellant-accused acquitted from charges levelled against him. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 19 and 20)

Facts of the case:

Being aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the Sessions Court, accused Bhagirathi, Chandrapal and Mangal Singh preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1812 of 1998 and the accused Videshi preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 2005 of 1998 before High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. High Court vide impugned judgment and order, confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused no. 2 Chandrapal for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, and under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and accordingly dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 1812 of 1998 qua the said accused Chandrapal. However, the High Court set aside conviction and sentence imposed on the accused Bhagirathi Kumhar, Mangal Singh and Videshi for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, nonetheless confirmed their conviction for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, and sentenced all of them to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No. 1812 of 1998 and 2005 of 1998 stood partly allowed. Present appellant-accused being aggrieved by judgment and order passed by the High Court has preferred the present appeal.

Findings of Court:

High Court had committed gross error in convicting appellant-accused for the alleged charge of 302 read with 34 of IPC, relying upon a very weak kind of evidence of extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co-accused and relying upon the theory of “Last seen together”.

Result : Appeal allowed.