2024 Supreme(SC) 144

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Kalinga @ Kushal - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka by Police Inspector Hubli - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2013
Decided On : 20-02-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Extra-judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution – Extent of acceptability of an extra-judicial confession depends on trustworthiness of witness before whom it is given and circumstances in which it was given.
(2) Task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on strength of an inference must be approached with abundant caution.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 30 – Extra-judicial confession – Extra-judicial confession is considered as a weak type of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to other evidence on record – Extra-judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution – If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at conclusion of guilt – Extent of acceptability of an extra-judicial confession depends on trustworthiness of witness before whom it is given and circumstances in which it was given – Prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by accused, that it was voluntary in nature and that contents of confession were true – Standard required for proving an extra-judicial confession to satisfaction of Court is on higher side and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt – Standard becomes even higher when entire case of prosecution necessarily rests on extra-judicial confession. (Paras 14 and 15)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 201, 302, 363, 364 read with 34 – Kidnapping, murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Prosecution case regarding identity of dead body is not free from doubts – Appellant has been convicted for commission of murder without ascertaining cause of death in a conclusive manner – Trial Court had appreciated entire evidence in a comprehensive sense and High Court reversed the view without arriving at any finding of perversity or illegality in order of Trial Court – High Court took a cursory view of matter and merely arrived at a different conclusion on a re-appreciation of evidence – High Court, in exercise of appellate powers, may reappreciate entire evidence – However, reversal of an order of acquittal is not to be based on mere existence of a different view or a mere difference of opinion – To permit so would be in violation of two views theory – Circumstances sought to be proved by prosecution are inconsistent and inconsistencies in chain of circumstances have not been explained by prosecution – Impugned order and judgment set aside and order of Trial Court restored. (Paras 22, 24, 25, 27 and 30)

(C) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Panchsheel Principles – Essentially, circumstantial evidence comes into picture when there is absence of direct evidence – For proving a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must be established that chain of circumstances is complete – It must also be established that chain of circumstances is consistent with only conclusion of guilt – Margin of error in a case based on circumstantial evidence is minimal – Chain of circumstantial evidence is essentially meant to enable court in drawing an inference – Task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on strength of an inference must be approached with abundant caution. (Para 27)

Facts of the case:

Issues that arise for the consideration of this Court, as follows:

i. Whether extra judicial confession of appellant/accused was admissible, credible and sufficient for conviction of accused thereon?

ii. Whether testimony of PW-1 could be termed as reliable and trustworthy?

iii. Whether chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and consistent for arriving at the conclusion of guilt?

Findings of Court:

Evidence of prosecution, at best, makes out a case for suspicion, and not for conviction. Accordingly, impugned order and judgment are set aside. We find no infirmity in order of Trial Court and same stands restored. Consequently, appellant is acquitted from all charges levelled upon him. Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if lying in custody.

Result : Appeal allowed.