Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder of four-year-old minor girl – Sentence of death penalty imposed by the Trial Court & High Court – Accused acquitted for want of conclusive evidence to point at guilt of Accused:
Held: The case at hand is one based on circumstantial evidence – It is the settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must convince the Court that circumstances point towards the guilt of the accused alone and none else, as also lack of his innocence – The conviction handed to the accusedappellant has been based on (a) last seen circumstance; (b) extra-judicial confession given by him, leading to the recovery of the dead body of ‘X’ along with articles worn by her at the time of death; (c) the FSL Report of the articles recovered, both of the deceased and the accused – The conviction of the accused by the Courts below is based on improper appreciation of evidence on record and in correct appreciation of settled principles of law resulting in the travesty of justice – The entire case of the prosecution, from its genesis, is doubtful – In the first instance, the conduct of the accused does not give rise to suspicion – PW1 and PW2 have deposed to the fact that the appellant was part of the search parties for 5-6 days after the incident – It is improbable that a person who killed ‘X’ would have been there all along, as a search party looking for her – None suspected him and pointed a finger of suspension against him, despite the hypothesis of the last seen theory – Another aspect which creates doubt in the prosecution story is that for six days from when the child disappears, there is not a single person who lodges a missing report with the police or any other authority – This aspect is more suspicious coupled with the deposition of PW1 to 3, PW6 and PW7. [Paras 15, 17-20]
Furthermore, the body of ‘X’ was recovered in an open sugarcane field six days after the incident – PWs 2 and 3 deposed that a foul smell was coming from the spot as well – However, no single villager came upon this open spot for six days, which creates suspicion in our minds about the prosecution story – The field is not a jungle; it was cultivated; sugarcane crop was grown; it was privately owned; and the village was inhabited, hence, it is unbelievable that no one noticed the foul smell, particularly when the entire area was combed over for nearly 5-6 days. [Para 21] Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Circumstantial evidence – When two views possible, one in favour of Accused to be adopted:
Held: Reliance placed on Pradeep Kumar v. State of Haryana (2024) 3 SCC 324 where it has been held that in circumstantial evidence cases, all facts must be consistent with the hypothesis of the accused’s guilt, excluding his innocence and also exclusion of third-party involvement – Reliance placed on Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) 5 SCC 350 where it has been held that in cases where there is a heavy reliance on circumstantial evidence and on a perusal of evidence, two views are possible, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted. [Para 16]
Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Extra-judicial confession – Trustworthiness of extrajudicial confession depends on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given – Extrajudicial evidence to be supported by other evidence: Held: The extra-judicial confession and the consequent recovery are also surrounded by suspicious circumstances – There is no doubt that the case of the prosecution depends entirely on the extra judicial confession of the accused leading to the recovery of body from the sugarcane field, along with other articles worn by the deceased – Reliance placed on Kalinga v. State of Karnataka (2024) 4 SCC 735 – If extra-judicial confession 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 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 – The prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true – The standard required for proving an extra-judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these 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 extrajudicial confession – Reliance placed on Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023) 6 SCC 605 where it has been held that where suspicious circumstances surround an extra-judicial confession, its credibility becomes doubtful and loses. [Paras 23-26] Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Requirement of independent witnesses to prove in the case of circumstantial evidence: Held: The most pertinent suspicion in the prosecution case is that no single independent witness is adjoined or examined in support of the confession or consequent recovery – The recovery of the body of the deceased is from a field which is accessible and open to the public, which further warrants need for an independent witness – Given the availability of independent witnesses in this case, the investigating officer has deliberated to exclude them. [Paras 29, 30]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Abhinav Mukerji, Sr. Adv.) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3383 (1984) 4 SCC 116 ** Note: On 6th February 2005 itself, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 224 of 2019 in the matter of Sanjay v. Union . 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.