Extra-Judicial Confession Made to Inimical Person & After Being Tied Up is Not Voluntary and Unreliable: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in 28-Year-Old Murder Case - 2025-09-30

Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in 28-Year-Old Murder Case, Cites Unreliable Confession and Flawed Evidence

LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court has acquitted Jaimangal Yadav in a murder case dating back to 1996, overturning a trial court's life sentence. The division bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan ruled that the prosecution's case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, was riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, particularly concerning an alleged extra-judicial confession.

The Court set aside the March 8, 2002 judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, which had convicted Yadav for the murder of Bhagwati Prasad Tiwari, a clerk at a coal depot.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to February 29, 1996, when Bhagwati Prasad Tiwari was found brutally murdered at the Saket Coal Traders depot in Gonda. The depot owner, Bhagwan Prasad, filed an FIR alleging that the depot's watchman, Jaimangal Yadav, had committed the crime.

According to the prosecution, Prasad, upon discovering his clerk's body, searched for Yadav and found him hiding in a nearby field. After being apprehended, Yadav allegedly confessed to killing Tiwari with a 'sabbal' (iron rod) because the deceased had accused him of theft and withheld his dues. The prosecution's case rested on four key circumstances:

1. Yadav hiding near the crime scene.

2. His extra-judicial confession to the informant and associates.

3. A subsequent confession to the police.

4. The recovery of a blood-stained 'sabbal' at Yadav's instance.

Yadav denied the charges, claiming he was not employed at the depot and was framed due to an existing land dispute with the informant, Bhagwan Prasad. The trial court found the evidence sufficient and convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC.

---

Appellant's Arguments

Appearing as Amicus Curiae, counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court erred in convicting Yadav based on weak and insufficient evidence. Key submissions included:

* The prosecution's story was improbable, questioning why Yadav would wait for hours near the scene only to flee upon seeing the informant.

* The extra-judicial confession was unreliable, made to an inimical person, and lacked credibility.

* There were material contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the recovery of the weapon.

* The appellant had a specific defense of false implication due to a land dispute, which the trial court did not properly consider.

---

High Court's Scrutiny and Precedents

The High Court meticulously analyzed the pillars of the prosecution's case and found them to be fundamentally flawed.

On the Extra-Judicial Confession

The bench observed that an extra-judicial confession is an inherently weak piece of evidence that requires great care and corroboration. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan , the court outlined principles for its admissibility, emphasizing that it must be voluntary, truthful, and inspire confidence.

The Court found Yadav's alleged confession failed these tests for several reasons:

* Contradictory Motives: The two key witnesses, PW-1 Bhagwan Prasad and PW-2 Shiv Shankar, provided different motives for the murder in their testimonies about the confession.

* Inimical Relationship: The court highlighted evidence that Yadav was a witness in a civil suit against the informant. It questioned why he would confess to a person with whom he had a hostile relationship.

* Lack of Voluntariness: The judgment noted, "The extra judicial confession made by the appellant in presence of informant and P.W. 2

- Shiv Shankar could not be termed as having been made voluntarily and no reliance could be placed on it," as it was allegedly made after he was overpowered and tied with a rope.

On the Recovery of the Weapon

The court also found the recovery of the 'sabbal' to be highly doubtful. It pointed to glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the informant, another witness, and the investigating officer, who all cited different locations (heap of bricks vs. heap of coal) from where the weapon was recovered.

Furthermore, the recovery memo itself was suspicious. The Court extracted a critical admission from the Investigating Officer's cross-examination:

"he admitted that there is cutting and overwriting in this Memo and the signature and left thumb impression of the appellant is also not visible on this memo."

The absence of the appellant's signature on the memo, without explanation, proved fatal to this piece of evidence.

Contradiction in Medical Evidence

The court found a significant contradiction between the oral testimony and the medical evidence. While the prosecution claimed a 'sabbal' was the sole weapon, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem stated that four of the five injuries were caused by a blunt object, while one was from a sharp-edged weapon. This created a "vacuum in prosecution story" that was left unexplained.

---

Final Decision and Implications

Concluding that the trial court committed a "manifest illegality" by relying on the highly improbable confession, doubtful weapon recovery, and contradictory medical evidence, the High Court allowed the appeal.

"The aforesaid analysis/ appreciation of the evidence made by us is sufficient to demonstrate that firstly the trial court has committed manifest illegality in relying on the evidence of 'extra judicial confession' as the same has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and is highly improbable," the bench stated.

The Court set aside the 2002 conviction and acquitted Jaimangal Yadav of all charges. As Yadav had already been released from prison after being granted remission, the Court directed the trial court to provide him with a copy of the judgment to remove the "stigma of being convicted."