Kalinga @ Kushal vs State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli

Held: Extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record – It must be accepted with great care and caution – If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt – The extent of acceptability of an extra judicial confession depends on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the circumstances in which it was given – Prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, it was voluntary in nature and the contents of the confession were true – In the present case, the extra judicial confession is essentially based on the deposition of PW-1, the father of the deceased whose testimony is fatal to the prosecution case on multiple parameters – The doubtful existence of the extra judicial confession, unnatural prior and subsequent conduct of PW-1, recovery of dead body in the presence of an unreliable witness PW-2, contradictions regarding arrest, testimony of the witnesses in support of the last seen theory etc. are some of the inconsistencies which strike at the root of the prosecution case – There exist serious doubts regarding the identity of the dead body recovered from the well – Testimony of PW-1 not trustworthy and reliable – Evidence on record fails the test laid down for the acceptability of circumstantial evidence – Trial Court appreciated the evidence in a comprehensive sense, High Court reversed the view without arriving at any finding of perversity or illegality therein – It took a cursory view of the matter and merely arrived at a different conclusion on re-appreciation of evidence – Anomaly of having two reasonably possible views in a matter is to be resolved in favour of the accused – After acquittal, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced – High Court erred in reversing the acquittal – Impugned judgment set aside – Order of Trial Court restored, appellant acquitted. [Paras 14-16, 25-27 and 30]

Appeal against acquittal – Exercise of appellate powers by High Court:

Held: High Court, in exercise of appellate powers, may re-appreciate the 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 the two views theory – In order to reverse an order of acquittal in appeal, it is essential to arrive at a finding that the order of the Trial Court was perverse or illegal; or that the Trial Court did not fully appreciate the evidence on record; or that the view of the Trial Court was not a possible view. [Para 25] Evidence – Extra judicial confession – Standard of proof: Held: The standard required for proving an extra judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and the essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt – The standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra judicial confession. [Para 15]

Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – “Panchsheel” Principles: Held: 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 the chain of circumstances is complete – It must also be established that the chain of circumstances is consistent with the only conclusion of guilt – The margin of error in a case based on circumstantial evidence is minimal – For, the chain of circumstantial evidence is essentially meant to enable the court in drawing an inference – The task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on the strength of an inference must be approached with abundant caution. [Para 27]

Criminal Law – Minor inconsistencies vis-à-vis reasonable doubt – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Plea of the respondent-State that minor inconsistencies could not be construed as reasonable doubts for ordering acquittal: Held: No doubt, it is trite law that a reasonable doubt is essentially a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution and minor inconsistencies are not to be elevated to the status of a reasonable doubt – A reasonable doubt is one which renders the possibility of guilt as highly doubtful – Purpose of criminal trial is not only to ensure that an innocent person is not punished, but it is also to ensure that the guilty does not escape unpunished – In the present case, the inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution are not minor inconsistencies – Prosecution miserably failed to establish a coherent chain of circumstances – The present case does not fall in the category of a light-hearted acquittal, which is shunned upon in law. [Para 29]