1998 Supreme(Raj) 1010
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
B.J.Shthna, J.
Patiya - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 424 of 1981.
Decided On : 25-03-1998
Advocates:
For the Appellant:S.R. Singhvi, Suresh Khumbhat, Advocate.
For the Respondent: D.S. Rathore, P.P.
The unreliability of extra judicial confession as the sole evidence for conviction.
Headnote:
Extra Judicial Confession - Conviction under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code - The court held that it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the accused, especially when there was no other evidence and the witnesses were found to be unreliable and interested witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant accused was convicted under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife based on extra judicial confession made by the accused before the brothers of the deceased wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the witnesses was not reliable and it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the extra judicial confession, especially when there was no other evidence.
Issues: Reliability of extra judicial confession as the sole evidence for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the accused, especially when there was no other evidence and the witnesses were found to be unreliable and interested witnesses.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the conviction under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code was set aside.
JUDGMENT
1. - The appellant accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife. The trial court has not convicted the accused under Section 302 Indian Penal Code but has convicted him under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code as he was of the opinion that the accused had no intention to kill his wife. For convicting the accused under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code he relied upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused before the P.W. 2, Dala and PW 3, Kansa who are the brothers of the deceased wife. Except this there was no other evidence. The trial court clearly held that there was no eye witness to the incident. It would be very risky and hazardous to base the conviction on the extra judicial confession made by the accused, which itself is a very weak piece of evidence. The same can be used for the purpose of corroboration to the other evidence on record, which is lacking in this case. There are series of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, it has been held that it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the accused. In a given case it creates doubt in the mind of the court about the accused making extra judicial confession to P.W. 2, Dal and P.W. 3 Kansa, who were the most interest witnesses, the brothers of the deceased Indri.
2. When the learned trial Judge himself has found that the evidence of these witnesses was not reliable and they were the interested witnesses for other purposes then for the purpose of extra judicial confession their evidence cannot be relied upon.
3. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly (Sic) allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge convicting the accused under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code is set aside. The accused is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stands cancelled.Appeal Allowed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
