2025 Supreme(SC) 268

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Ramu Appa Mahapatar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2013
Decided On : 04-02-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 appear to be cogent, such evidence should not be considered.
(2) Circumstantial evidence – While conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 22] – Extra-judicial confession – Evidentiary value – If evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is found credible after being tested on touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form basis of conviction – Requirement of corroboration is a matter of prudence and not an invariable rule of law – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence – Wherever court intends to base conviction on extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence – If extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent, such evidence should not be considered. (Paras 17, 17.2 and 19.1)

(B) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Extra-judicial confession of an offence made by accused before a witness is one of several instances of circumstantial evidence – There are other circumstances such as theory of last seen together; conduct of accused before or immediately after incident; human blood being found on clothes or person of accused which matches with that of accused; leading to discovery, recovery of weapon etc. – Circumstantial evidence is not direct to point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with fact in issue that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances from which existence of principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed – Chain must be complete and each fact forming part of chain must be proved – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person – Circumstances would not only have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, those would also have to be shown to be closely connected with principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances – All these circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in chain of evidence – Proved circumstances must be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence – Circumstances taken cumulatively must be so complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability crime was committed by accused and none else – While conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence – If evidence relied upon is reasonably capable of two inferences, one in favour of accused must be accepted. (Para 16)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder – Life sentence – Accused was not in a fit state of mind when he made extra-judicial confession – There were no blood stains on clothes worn by accused – Extra-judicial confession of accused lacks credibility – Testimony of prosecution witnesses suffers from serious lack of credibility and also hit by contradictions which strike at very root of prosecution case – No corroborating circumstances have been brought on record by prosecution – It would be wholly unsafe to sustain conviction of appellant based on such weak circumstantial evidence which on top of it lack credibility – Appellant must get benefit of doubt – Appellant acquitted. (Paras 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25)

Facts of the case:

Appellant was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer RI for 3 months. High Court dismissed appeal of appellant.

Findings of Court:

Conviction and sentence of appellant vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2004 passed by Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2004 as affirmed by High Court vide the judgment and order dated 02.12.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2005, are hereby set aside and quashed. Appellant shall be released from custody forthwith if not required in any other case.

Result : Criminal Appeal allowed. Accused acquitted.