Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Allegation that a police man-A1 took loan from another police man-victim – The victim-deceased made persistent demands for repayment of the loan – This led to A2, the wife of A1, calling the victim to her home on the pretext of repaying the debt – At night, victim was made immobile by throwing chili powder on his face and hacked to death with two choppers wielded by the accused – A2 then, after sunrise, went directly to the police station and confessed to the SHO about the crime and apprised him of the presence of the dead body in her house – A police constable made enquiries and later an inquest was done, after which the body was taken to the hospital – Trial Court acquitted A-1 and A-2 to A-4 were convicted u/s. 302 – The High Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court – Correctness:
Held: 1. There is no cogent, credible evidence that the body was at the house of A-1 & 2 – The extra judicial confessions and the context in which they were made, within the police station cannot at all be relied upon – The extra judicial confessions, said to have been made by A2 in the present case, were all within the police station, where she is said to have voluntarily come, to confess about the murder – The other witnesses to whom the extra judicial confession was made, that too inside the police station, in any case turned hostile – As far as recovery of chopper MO-16 on the confession statement is concerned, the I.O though has stated about the disclosure statement of both A3 and A4, he does not specify whether it is simultaneous or one after the other – It is also not clear; if the disclosure is at different points of time, in which event, who made the first disclosure – PW-2 and PW-3, the witnesses of recovery of MO16 turned hostile – Further, it also has to be noticed that but for the recovery there is nothing to indicate the culpability of A3 and A4 through forensic evidence to link the recovered weapon to the crime proper – The fact that confessions were made by both the accused and the recovery was made from one of the accused, A4, leading the police to the spot would restrain this Court from treating the recovery as an inculpating circumstance against A3 or A4, especially when the confession is taken simultaneously from both the accused – This Court is of the opinion that in the present case there can be no reliance placed on the recovery based on the sketchy evidence adduced – PW-20 and PW-22 eyewitnesses turned completely hostile – The prosecution case itself was that the deceased was summoned to the house of A-1 & 2, for which there is no evidence adduced nor does PW-18, the wife speaks of the deceased having left the house on receiving such a call – Further it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased reached the house of the accused at around 10 pm while the death was confirmed as having occurred at 2 pm – What happened in the interregnum is not clear, there is a suspicion as to the genesis and origin of the crime which compounds the reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case – The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused – This Court is of considered opinion that the conviction cannot be sustained. [Paras 22, 23, 25, 28, 31, 34, 35] Evidence Act, 1872 – s.27 – Disclosure statements taken from one or more persons in police custody – Recovery u/s. 27 – Fact discovered. [Paras 27-30]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.25 and s.26 – Confession to a Police Officer:
Held: Section 25 of the Evidence Act mandates that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence and Section 26 also restricts any confession by a person in the custody of a police officer from being proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. [Para 24]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.