The Case Of Extra Judicial Confession Cannot Be Accepted: SC Acquits Man Accused Of Murder Of Stepmother Over Land Dispute
|The Supreme Court acquitted a man accused of murdering his stepmother over a land dispute, observing that the prosecution evidence of the alleged extra-judicial confession cannot be accepted.
The Court explained that the normal rule of human conduct is that if a person wants to confess to the crime committed by him, he will do so before the person in whom he has implicit faith.
The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed, “The normal rule of human conduct is that if a person wants to confess to the crime committed by him, he will do so before the person in whom he has implicit faith. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had a close acquaintance with PW-1 for a certain length of time before the incident. Moreover, the version of the witness in examination- in-chief and cross-examination is entirely different. Therefore, in our considered view the testimony of PW-1 is not reliable. Hence, the case of extra-judicial confession cannot be accepted.”
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant is involved in a land dispute with the deceased. He assaulted her, dragged her by her hair to a village pond, and drowned her. Later an FIR was registered and a charge sheet was filed. Although there was no direct evidence, the prosecution relied on an extra-judicial confession to the village officer and the testimony of the deceased's brother, who saw the appellant dragging the deceased. The Trial Court and High Court accepted parts of the village officer’s testimony, despite her being declared hostile.
The Court relied on the site map and noted that there is a considerable distance between the house of the deceased and the pond on which the victim was alleged to have been dragged. The Court said, “If the prosecution story of the appellant dragging the deceased was true, there would have been some injury on the body of the deceased. Therefore, the absence of any injury marks on the body militates against the prosecution’s case.”
The Court said that the cross-examination of the witness by the public prosecutor shows that the witness was not confronted by showing the relevant part of her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. According to the Court, the witness ought to have been confronted with her prior statement in accordance with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
As regards the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession the Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan and quoted, “It is true that an extra-judicial confession is used against its maker but as a matter of caution, advisable for the court to look for a corroboration with the other evidence on record…..this Court while dealing with extra-judicial confession held that extra-judicial confession is, on the face of it, a weak evidence and the Court is reluctant, in the absence of a chain of cogent circumstances, to rely on it, for the purpose of recording a conviction.”
Accordingly, the Court said that the appellant’s guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ratnu Yadav v. State of Chattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 487)