2022 Supreme(SC) 1045

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat, J.B. Pardiwala, JJ.
Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 64-65 of 2022
Decided On : 13-10-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Circumstantial evidence – Accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of expected principles in that regard – In a case of circumstantial evidence, judgment remains essentially inferential.
(2) Extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by Court – Confession will have to be proved like any other fact.
(3) Prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence.
(4) Legal aid to accused – It is duty of court to see and ensure that accused put on a criminal trial is effectively represented by a defence Counsel.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards involvement and guilty of suspect or accused – Accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye witness in the case – Accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of expected principles in that regard – In a case of circumstantial evidence, judgment remains essentially inferential – Inference is drawn from established facts as circumstances lead to particular inferences – Court has to draw an inference with respect to whether chain of circumstances is complete and when circumstances therein are collectively considered, same must lead only to irresistible conclusion that accused alone is perpetrator of crime in question – All circumstances so established must be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused. (Paras 46, 47 and 50)

(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Requirement of law that needs to be fulfilled before accepting evidence of discovery is that by proving contents of Panchanama – Investigating officer in his deposition is obliged in law to prove contents of Panchanama and it is only if investigating officer has successfully proved contents of discovery Panchanama in accordance with law, then in that case prosecution may be justified in relying upon such evidence and trial court may also accept evidence – In order to enable Court to safely rely upon evidence of investigating officer, it is necessary that exact words attributed to accused, as statement made by him, be brought on record and, for this purpose investigating officer is obliged to depose in his evidence exact statement and not by merely saying that a discovery Panchanama of weapon of offence was drawn as accused was willing to take it out from a particular place. (Para 56)

(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24 – Extra-Judicial confession – Extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by Court – Confession will have to be proved like any other fact – Value of evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon veracity of witness to whom it has been made – Value of evidence as to confession depends on reliability of witness who gives evidence – It is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence – It would depend on nature of circumstances, time when confession was made and credibility of witnesses who speak to such a confession – Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and court must ensure that same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence – It is considered to be a weak piece of evidence as it can be easily procured whenever direct evidence is not available – In order to accept extra-judicial confession, it must be voluntary and must inspire confidence – If court is satisfied that extra-judicial confession is voluntary, it can be acted upon to base conviction – Conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence – Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated – Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. (Paras 81, 82, 84 and 85)

(D) Criminal Law – Motive – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing crime on part of accused assumes greater importance – Motive for commission of offence assumes greater importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence than those in which direct evidence regarding commission of offence is available – Failure to prove motive in cases resting on circumstantial evidence is not fatal by itself – However, absence of motive could be a missing link of incriminating circumstances, but once prosecution has established other incriminating circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will not give any benefit to accused – Even if it is believed that accused appellant had a motive to commit crime, same may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial evidence but cannot take place as a conclusive proof that person concerned was author of crime. (Paras 87 and 90)

(E) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 8 – Murder of wife and four children – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Extra-marital affair of accused – Mere discovery cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment by person who discovered weapon – He could have derived knowledge of existence of that weapon at the place through some other source also – Although conduct of accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of Evidence Act, yet same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder – Evidence of discovery of weapon and blood stained clothes at instance of accused appellant can hardly be treated as legal evidence, more particularly, considering various legal infirmities in the same – Prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from weakness of defence – None of pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by courts below, can be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against accused – Though offence is gruesome and revolts human conscience but accused can be convicted only on legal evidence – Appellant acquitted. (Paras 68, 70, 75, 96, 116 and 130)

(F) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 304 – Constitution of India – Article 39A – Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Section 9 – Legal aid to accused – It is duty of court to see and ensure that accused put on a criminal trial is effectively represented by a defence counsel, and in the event on account of indigence, poverty or illiteracy or any other disabling factor, he is not able to engage a Counsel of his choice, it becomes duty of court to provide him appropriate and meaningful legal aid at State expense – What is meant by duty of State to ensure a fair defence to an accused is not employment of a defence counsel for namesake – It has to be provision of a Counsel who defends accused diligently to best of his abilities – While quality of defence or calibre of Counsel would not militate against guarantee to a fair trial sanctioned by Articles 21 and 22 reply of Constitution, a threshold level of competence and due diligence in discharge of his duties as a defence counsel would certainly be constitutional guaranteed expectation – Presence of Counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent. (Para 119)

Facts of the case:

Accused appellant has been held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court sentenced accused appellant to death under Section 302 of IPC and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal filed by accused appellant thereby confirming death reference under Section 366 of Cr.P.C.

Findings of Court:

Conviction of accused appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside. He is acquitted of charge framed against him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other offences.

Result : Appeals allowed. Appellant acquitted.