Evidence – Extra-judicial confession – Dying declaration – Reliance upon, when – Murder case wherein prosecution case based on the evidence of eyewitnesses, extra-judicial confession made by the appellant-accused to his employer, and the dying declaration made by the victim to one of the prosecution witness – Though few prosecution witnesses who were eyewitnesses turned hostile, courts below relied upon certain parts of their testimony – High Court disbelieved the testimony of the appellant’s employer and the prosecution witness to whom dying declaration was made – Conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC – Correctness:
Held: Normal rule of human conduct is that a person would confess the commission of a serious crime to a person in whom he has implicit faith – It is unnatural that the appellant-accused would call his employer-prosecution witness with whom he worked barely for five months on the phone and confess, and further call him to the Bus Station – Furthermore, the employer admittedly did not disclose to the police the telephone number from which he allegedly received a call from the appellant – No investigation was made to ascertain the said phone number as also the phone number from which the employer called PSI – It was necessary for the prosecution to collect evidence on these aspects and place it before the Court – Though the employer stated that the appellant again made extra-judicial confession at the Bus Station in the presence of PSI, the prosecution did not examined PSI as a witness – Statement of PSI not recorded during the investigation – Alleged confession made by the appellant before PSI could not be proved against the appellant – Hence, the prosecution’s evidence regarding extra-judicial confession cannot be believed – It was PSI who took the appellant into custody – Hence, PSI was a crucial witness – Vital prosecution witness was withheld from the Court – Moreover, the manner in which the appellant was taken into custody becomes highly suspicious as it was not even recorded in the arrest panchnama that PSI arrested the appellant – Thus, not possible to rely upon the evidence of the employer – Prosecution case regarding the dying declaration made to one of the prosecution witness does not inspire confidence at all – Also, on perusal of the evidence of the hostile prosecution witnesses, nothing in the evidence to be relied upon by the prosecution for connecting the appellant with the murder of the deceased – Appellant’s conviction cannot be sustained – Conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Evidence Act, 1872. [Paras 7, 8, 10, 14, 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.