'Extrajudicial confession Lacks Credibility, Circumstances Not Proved' : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

While acquitting a murder accused, the Supreme Court observed that extrajudicial confession is one of the other instances of circumstantial evidence, including the accused's guilt after the incident, recovery of evidence, and others. The Court reiterated that in cases where reliance is placed solely on circumstantial evidence, a conviction can only occur when all circumstances point towards the accused's guilt. “The circumstances would not only have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, those would also have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. All these circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.”The Bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan were hearing an appeal of the present appellant accused who was convicted for the murder of his partner. As per the prosecution's case, the appellant lived with the deceased in a live-in relationship. A quarrel took place between them and he assaulted her, leading to her death. Subsequently, the appellant informed about this incident to his landlord and the deceased's relatives.The Trial Court convicted him based on circumstantial evidence including the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant. The High Court affirmed this conviction; thus, the present appeal.At the outset, the Court observed that the Courts must be careful in evaluating circumstantial evidence. If the evidence relied upon is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted., the Court said.Citing State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180, the Court stressed that the confession must made by the accused voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. Apart from this, after placing its reliance on Sahadevan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu., (2012) 6 SCC 403, the Court reiterated that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Further, the courts must ensure that such confession inspires confidence and is corroborated by other evidence.Building on this, the Court analysed the evidence placed on record. After examining the witnesses' testimonies, it noted that before the Trial Court, the deceased's brother had stated that he found the accused to be in a confused state of mind. Thus, the Court concluded that the accused was not in a fit state of mind.The Court also pointed out that there was no recovery of one of the murder weapons and any blood-stained clothes of the accused.“Moreover, we find the conduct of the accused to be quite strange; instead of confessing his guilt before the police or any other authority, he first goes to PW-1, the landlord, and tells him about the death of Manda; further telling him that he was on his way to the residence of the brother of Manda (PW-3) to inform him about the development.,” the Court said before adding that the reaction of deceased's brother was more strange who instead of reacting strongly accompanied the accused back to his residence.The Court also noted several material omissions in the witnesses' statements before the police and the one deposed before the Court.“From the above, it is evident that not only the extrajudicial confession of the accused lacks credibility as PW-3 is clearly on record stating that the accused was in a confused state of mind when he confessed before him, the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6 suffer from material omission. Their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are at variance with their evidence in court regarding the confession made by the accused before PW-3.”In view of this, the Court opined that though there was a strong suspicion against the appellant, the same could not take the place of hard evidence. It observed that the evidence suffered from a serious lack of credibility and there were no corroborating circumstances.Thus, while granting the benefit of the doubt to the accused, the Court quashed the impugned judgment. While doing so, the Court also directed the release of the accused.Appearances:Appellant: Dr. Nirmal Chopra, AORRespondent: Mr. Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AORCase Name: Ramu Appa Mahapatar vs State Of Maharashtra., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2013Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 155Click here to read/ download the judgment

'Extrajudicial confession Lacks Credibility, Circumstances Not Proved' : Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags