Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Moorthy - Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.975 of 2011
Decided On : 18-08-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Conviction and sentence – Extra-judicial confession – Extra-judicial confession is always a weak piece of evidence – Dead body was recovered from a place which was accessible to all – It is not the case of prosecution that place where dead body was buried was accessible and known only to appellant – This also raises serious doubt about theory of prosecution about discovery of body at instance of appellant – Body had decomposed and only skeleton was exhumed – Witnesses examined to prove last seen together theory were declared hostile – There is serious doubt about genuineness of prosecution case regarding recovery of a dead body at instance of appellant and recovery of alleged instrument of offence at instance of appellant – There was no legal evidence on record to convict appellant – Guilt of appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant acquitted of offences alleged against him. (Paras 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 201, IPC. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by High Court by impugned judgment.
Findings of Court:
Judgment and order dated 31st March 2008 passed by Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.24 of 2008 as well as impugned judgment and order dated 28th January 2009 passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2008 are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of offences alleged against him.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment acquits the appellant and sets aside lower court judgments, holding there was no legal evidence to convict, particularly questioning the reliability of the extra-judicial confession. (!) (!) - Extra-judicial confession is generally a weak piece of evidence, but may sustain a conviction if proven voluntary and truthful, without inducement, with reliability considered, and corroboration if available. (!) (!) - The extra-judicial confession in this case was recorded by a Stranger to the appellant (PW-1) two months after the incident, raising doubts about reliability and making conviction unsustainable. (!) (!) (!) - The prosecution’s evidence regarding the recovery of the dead body and the weapon (stick) at the instance of the appellant, and the identity of the body, was found to be doubtful and not supported by consistent or sufficient legal evidence. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court emphasized that there was no independent corroboration and significant inconsistencies in key witnesses, leading to reasonable doubt. (!) (!) (!) - The appellant is acquitted of the offences; bail bonds are cancelled as the appellant is on bail. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 201, IPC. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.
2. The deceased Shanthi was the wife of the appellant. According to the prosecution case, the appellant suspected that the deceased had illicit intimacy with one Peethambaram. On 29th May 2006 at about 9:00 p.m., the appellant took the deceased to the bank of Ponnai River and assaulted her with a stick. The said Shanthi succumbed to the injuries. He buried the dead body in the same place. PW Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of the deceased who were enquiring with the appellant about the whereabouts of the deceased. However, the appellant told them that the deceased was missing.
3. The prosecution relied upon the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before PW-1 Ganesan Perumal in the presence of PW2 Tyagarajan Kannan. Secondly, the prosecution relied upon the recovery of the dead body and the stick allegedly used as a weapon of assault at the instance of the appellant. Thirdly, according to the prosecution, the skeleton was identified by PW nos.3 and 4 on the basis of the clothes thereon.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that PW nos.1 and 2 were complete strangers to the appellant. Moreover, the alleged extra-judicial confession was made by the appellant before the said two witnesses 2 months and 11 days after the date of the incident. The learned counsel further submitted that the conduct of PW-1 who was the Village Administrative Officer, does not inspire confidence as he immediately did not report the matter to the police. The learned counsel further submitted that the identity of the body/skeleton was not established. He submitted that recourse was not taken to DNA test for identification of the skeleton. He also submitted that there is a material discrepancy in the evidence of PW-18 Investigating Officer and PW-1 about the place from which the stick, which was the weapon of offence, was discovered. He pointed out that PW nos.8 to 11 who were cited as witnesses to support the theory of last seen together, did not support the prosecution.
5. Dr. Joseph Aristotle, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that there are no major discrepancies and contradictions in the version of PW nos.1 and 18. He submitted that though PW8 was declared as hostile, his evidence cannot be discarded in its entirety. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 11 SCC 111 . He submitted that the discovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant is a very important circumstance against the accused. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Anuj Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar, (2013) 12 SCC 383.
OUR VIEW
6. Firstly, we will deal with the prosecution case about the extra-judicial confession. As regards extra-judicial confession, the law has been laid down by this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar 2023 SCC OnLine SC 259. In paragraph 5 it is held thus :
“5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled.Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only wit
Extra-judicial confession is always a weak piece of evidence – Conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful.
Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; reliance on such confessions without substantive proof renders convictions unsafe.
Extrajudicial confessions require corroboration and cannot solely establish guilt without reliable evidence.
In criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes other hypotheses ....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
Extrajudicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; reliance on them must be cautious and supported by credible evidence.
(1) Extra-judicial confession – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence – If extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appea....
Extrajudicial confession can support a conviction if credible, corroborated by other evidence, and satisfies standards for circumstantial evidence.
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
