Manoj (Deleted as Died) vs State of M. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(MP) 686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Agarwal and Devnarayan Mishra, JJ.
Manoj (Deleted as Died) & Others v. The State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 1388 of 1995 (Jabalpur): against the judgment dated 30.9.1995 passed by the 2nd Additional Session Judge, Sehore in Sessions Case No.2 of 1995;
Decided on 19.11.2024

Advocates appeared:
Ishan Datt for appellant;
G. S. Thakur, Government Advocate for respondent/State.

Headnote:
(1) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- case based on circumstantial evidence -- no weapon sent for opinion of doctor conducting postmortem regarding whether said weapon could have caused injuries sustained by deceased -- no memorandum made in regard to recovery of weapon -- bundle of clothes recovered from hospital not sealed -- no reason for not recording memorandum of accused/appellants in presence of local witnesses -- both seizure witnesses hostile -- conviction based on extra-judicial confession of appellants allegedly made to three witnesses, two out of which hostile -- nobody had seen deceased in company of appellants -- brother of deceased expressed his suspicion about another person but I. O. failed to investigate matter in that light -- no previous enmity of appellants with deceased -- neither there is circumstantial evidence to connect appellants, nor there is an eye witness account -- held -- links in chain of circumstances not established -- in absence of corroboration, so-called confessional statements of appellants lose importance -- there is no material to show that extra-judicial confession is true and made voluntarily in a fit state of mind -- failed to pass test of credibility -- also failed to inspire confidence -- material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities -- conviction set aside. (2012) 6 SCC 174, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 259, (1997) 8 SCC 158, (1998) 6 SCC 108, (2003) 8 SCC 180, (2007) 12 SCC 230, (2011) 11 SCC 754, (2015) 12 SCC 644 and (2023) SCC Online SC 259 followed. (2023) 7 SCC 727 referred to. [Paras 24 to 31 & 36 to 40
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 27 -- extra-judicial confession -- is a weak piece of evidence -- Courts are to view it with greater care and caution -- for extra-judicial confession to form basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent probabilities. (2015) 12 SCC 644 followed. [Para 38
¼1½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 302 && lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 27 && çdj.k ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; ij vk/kkfjr && 'ko ijh{k.k djus okys fpfdRld dh ;g jk; ysus ds fy, dksbZ gfFk;kj ugha Hkstk x;k fd mä gfFk;kj ls og {kfr;‚a igq¡pkbZ tk ldrh Fkha ;k ugha tks e`rd dks igq¡ph Fkha && gfFk;kj dh cjkenxh ds laca/k esa dksbZ Kkiu ugha cuk;k x;k && fpfdRlky; ls cjken oL=ksa dh iksVyh eqgjcan ugha && vfHk;qäx.k@vihykFkhZx.k dk Kkiu LFkkuh; lk{khx.k dh mifLFkfr esa vfHkfyf[kr ugha djus ds fy, dksbZ dkj.k ugha && nksuksa vfHkxzg.k lk{kh i{kæksgh && nks"kflf) vihykFkhZx.k }kjk vfHkdfFkr :i ls rhu lkf{k;ksa dks dh xbZ U;kf;dsrj laLoh—fr ij vk/kkfjr] ftuesa ls nks i{kæksgh && fdlh us Hkh e`rd dks vihykFkhZx.k ds lkgp;Z esa ugha ns[kk && e`rd ds HkkbZ us ,d vU; O;fä ij lansg çdV fd;k ijarq vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh us bl çdk'k esa ekeys dk vUos"k.k ugha fd;k && vihykFkhZx.k dh e`rd ls dksbZ iwoZ 'k=qrk ugha && vihykFkhZx.k dks lafyIr djus ds fy, u rks dksbZ ikfjfLFkfrd lk{; gS] u dksbZ çR;{kn'khZ o`Ùkkar gh && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh J`a[kyk esa dfM+;k¡ LFkkfir ugha && laiqf"V ds vHkko esa] vihykFkhZx.k ds rFkkdfFkr laLoh—fr dFkuksa dk egRo lekIr gks tkrk gS && ;g n'kkZus ds fy, dksbZ lkexzh ugha fd U;kf;dsrj laLoh—fr lR; gS rFkk LoLFk ekufld n'kk esa LosPNk ls dh xbZ && fo'oluh;rk dh dlkSVh ij [kjh ugha mrjha && fo'oklksRiknd Hkh ugha && rkfRod folaxfr;k¡ vkSj varfuZfgr vufèklaHkkO;rk,¡ && nks"kflf) vikLrA ¼2012½ 6 ,llhlh 174] 1995 lIyh- ¼4½ ,llhlh 259] ¼1997½ 8 ,llhlh 158] ¼1998½ 6 ,llhlh 108] ¼2003½ 8 ,llhlh 180] ¼2007½ 12 ,llhlh 230] ¼2011½ 11 ,llhlh 754] ¼2015½ 12 ,llhlh 644 rFkk ¼2023½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 259 vuqlfjrA ¼2023½ 7 ,llhlh 727 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 24 ls 31 ,oa 36 ls 40
¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 && /kkjk 27 && U;kf;dsrj laLoh—fr && nqcZy lk{; gS && U;k;ky;ksa ds mls vR;f/kd lko/kkuh vkSj lrdZrk ls ns[kuk gksrk gS && U;kf;dsrj laLoh—fr nks"kflf) dk vk/kkj cu lds] blds fy, og fdUgha rkfRod folaxfr;ksa vkSj varfuZfgr vuf/klaHkkO;rkvksa ls xzLr ugha gksuk pkfg,A ¼2015½ 12 ,llhlh 644 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 38

ORDER

Agarwal, J. -- 1. This appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgment dated 30.9.1995 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Sehore in Sessions Case No.2/1995 (State of M.P. Through Police Station Mandi, Sehore v. Manoj S/o Ganesh Ram Rathore and Shiv Narayan S/o Amar Singh Rathore. Learned trial Court convicted the appellants under section 302 IPC with life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation of 6 months simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that on 11.12.1994 one Premnarayan, Chowkidar, (PW-1) had given intimation to the police that dead body of Munna was lying in the fields of Ajay Rathore. Police had recorded marg intimation No.38/1994 vide Ex.P-4 and during marg investigation had recorded statements of one Ramesh Chand Kushwaha (PW-7), brother of the deceased Munna. These statements were recorded on 14.12.1994, when Ramesh Chand had informed that accused Manoj and Shiv Narayan on account of some altercation in relation to money transaction had committed murder of Munna at Subhash school ground in the presence of witnesses Dev Prasad (PW-8) and Kishorilal (PW-9) by strangulating him and causing injuries with an object like ‘Pocker’.

3. On such intimation, I.O. of the case, Vijendra Pal Singh (PW-13) had reached Subhash school ground where he had found accused persons in the company of witnesses Dev Prasad and Kishorilal. At Subhash school ground itself, memorandum under section 27 Evidence Act was prepared and a ‘Pocker’ was seized from a place near Machhli Pull. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore from where the case was committed and was registered as Sessions Case No.2/1995.

4. Shri Ishan Datt, learned counsel for the appellants submits that evidence of Ramesh Chand Kushwaha (PW-7), Dev Prasad (PW-8) and Kishorilal (PW-9) is not trustworthy and the conviction of the appellants is based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab [(2023) 7 SCC 727] , where relying on para 23, it is submitted that extra-judicial confession should be credible and it is held that Courts below erred in relying on the extra-judicial confession made to PW-2.

6. Similarly, reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar [(2023) SCC Online SC 259] on the aspect of evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession.

7. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana [(2015) 12 SCC 644] where it is held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, prosecution relied on circumstances of : (i) motive; (ii) last seen theory; (iii) extra-judicial confession; and (iv) recovery of blood stain clothes and knife held that circumstances not proved beyond reasonable doubt and reversed the conviction.

8. Aforesaid judgment has laid down the principles when conviction can be based solely on the circumstantial evidence and it is submitted that none of these principles are applicable. It is further held that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and Courts are to view it with greater care and caution.

9. Thus placing reliance on these three judgments, it is submitted that conviction of the appellants on the basis of extra-judicial confession cannot be upheld and is liable to be reversed.

10. Shri G.S. Thakur, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, in his turn, submits that extra-judicial confession has its own value and that cannot be undermined merely at the instance of the appellants.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record. Premnarayan (PW-1) is not only the author of marg intimation but also of village Chowkidar. He has stated that two and a half - three months ago, he was going to sehore from