(A) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 201, 302, 363, 364 – Murder – Extra judicial confession – Appeal against conviction – Appreciation of evidence – Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court reversed by High Court – Extra judicial confession is essentially based on the deposition of PW-1, the father of the deceased – Without going into the aspect of PW-1 being an interested witness at the threshold, his testimony is fatal to the prosecution case on multiple parameters – PW-1 deposed that the appellant had arrived at his residence on 14.11.2002 and mentioned about the deceased – Despite so, the appellant was allowed to leave the residence and no action whatsoever was taken by PW-1 – The incident took place on 03.11.2002 and despite lapse of 11 days, PW-1 had no clue about his deceased son – On the eleventh day, when the appellant arrives at his residence and mentions adversely about his deceased son, PW-1 does nothing about it – In fact, on the next day as well, PW-1 started off normally and went to his shop in a routine manner – Thereafter, he came back home in the afternoon of 15.11.2002 and confronted the appellant about the incident – There is no explanation as to how the appellant arrived at his residence again on 15.11.2002 – Nevertheless, PW-1 deposed that when he, his mother and wife confronted the appellant, he confessed to the murder of the deceased – Thereafter, they took him to the police station – Confession was made before PW-1, his mother and wife – However, the mother and wife of PW-1 were never examined as witnesses by the prosecution – This glaring mistake raises a serious doubt on the very existence of a confession, or even a statement, of this nature by the appellant. (Para 16 and 17)
(B) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 201, 302, 363, 364 – Murder – Overturning of Trial Court Decision – Appeal against conviction – Appreciation of evidence – Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court reversed by High Court – Trial Court had appreciated the entire evidence in a comprehensive sense – High Court reversed the view without arriving at any finding of perversity or illegality in the order of the Trial Court – High Court took a cursory view of the matter and merely arrived at a different conclusion on a re-appreciation of evidence – Held that it is settled law that the High Court, in exercise of appellate powers, may reappreciate the entire evidence – However, reversal of an order of acquittal is not to be based on mere existence of a different view or a mere difference of opinion – To permit so would be in violation of the two views theory, as reiterated by this Court from time to time in cases of this nature – In order to reverse an order of acquittal in appeal, it is essential to arrive at a finding that the order of the Trial Court was perverse or illegal; or that the Trial Court did not fully appreciate the evidence on record; or that the view of the Trial Court was not a possible view – Anomaly of having two reasonably possible views in a matter is to be resolved in favour of the accused. (Para 25 and 26)
(C) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 201, 302, 363, 364 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court reversed by High Court – Circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution are inconsistent and the inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances have not been explained by the prosecution – The doubtful existence of the extra judicial confession, unnatural conduct of PW-1, recovery of dead body in the presence of an unreliable witness PW-2, contradictions regarding arrest, unnatural prior and subsequent conduct of PW-1, incredible testimony of the witnesses in support of the last seen theory etc. are some of the inconsistencies which strike at the root of the prosecution case – To draw an inference of guilt on the basis of such evidence would result into nothing but failure of justice – The evidence on record completely fails the test laid down for the acceptability of circumstantial evidence – Held that High Court erred in reversing the decision of acquittal – The evidence of the prosecution, at best, makes out a case for suspicion, and not for conviction – Impugned order and judgment liable to be set aside – Find no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court and the same stands restored – Consequently, the appellant liable to be acquitted from all the charges levelled upon him. (Para 27 and 30)
(D) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 24 to 30 – Evidence – Extra judicial confession – Held that extra judicial confession is considered as a weak type of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record – An extra judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution – If it 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 – Furthermore, 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 extra judicial confession. (Para 14 and 15)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 110 SC
[2024 INSC 124]
Kalinga @ Kushal Vs. State Of Karnataka By Police Inspector Hubli
Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2013-Decided on 20-2-2024
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-110-SC.pdf
