Supreme Court of India
PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIA versus STATE OF BIHAR on 14 March 2023
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 875
PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIA
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 2230 of 2010)
MARCH 14, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Criminal Law – Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession –Conviction based on, when not justified – Appellant was convictedfor offences punishable u/s.302 r/w 34 and s.201, IPC based onextra-judicial confession – Held: Case of the prosecution was thatthe appellant had confessed to PW-1 to PW-9 – However, PW1 toPW6 including the complainant himself whose son was killed didnot support prosecution – PW7 to PW9, the only material prosecutionwitnesses were not consistent about the place at which the allegedconfession was made – Even after the alleged extra-judicialconfession of committing murder was made by the appellant beforethem, they did not report to the police – As per the prosecution theyaccompanied the appellant to the field where dead bodies were foundburied, without informing the police – This conduct is unusual andunnatural – There is nothing on record to show that the relationshipbetween the appellant and these three witnesses was such that theappellant had implicit faith in these three witnesses and, therefore,he confided with them – Prosecution's case about extra-judicialconfession does not inspire confidence at all – Moreover, there areno other circumstances brought on record which could support orcorroborate the prosecution case – Evidence in form of the extra-judicial confession of the appellant is discarded – Conviction ofthe appellant not sustainable – Impugned judgments set aside –Appellant acquitted – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 & 201.
Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary value of– Held: Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence –However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicialconfession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntaryand truthful – It should be free of any inducement – Evidentiaryvalue of such confession also depends on the person to whom it ismade – Generally, a person would confide about a crime committed
875
A
B
CDEF
G
H
Aby him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith –Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of theconfession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made –As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required – However, if anextra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence onrecord, it acquires more credibility.B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.2230 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2007 of the High Courtof Patna in CRLA No. 237 of 2002.
CGaurav Agrawal, Saurav Sunil, Advs. for the Appellant.
Abhinav Mukerji, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Mrs. Bihu Sharma,Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Advs. for the Repondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byDABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
1
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The appellant who is accused no.1 was prosecuted along withfour others for the offences punishable under Section 302 read withSection 34 as well as Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,E‘IPC’). The appellant has been convicted for both offences. For theoffence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, he has beensentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed theconviction of the appellant, whereas the remaining four accused wereacquitted.F
2. First informant is one Lakhi Prasad Chourasia (PW-5). FirstInformation Report (FIR) was registered on 20[th] June 1989. Thestatement of the first informant on the basis of which the FIR wasregistered notes that it has been recorded in the presence of RadheyPrasad Mandal (PW-1); Kisan Lal Mandal (PW-4); Satya Narain MandalG(PW-6); and Mohammad Tamijuddin (PW-7). It is alleged that on 10[th]June 1989, PW-5 had lodged a missing report. The missing report was inrespect of his son Kamlesh and nephew Bulla, son of one Hira Chaurasia(PW-9). They were missing from 02[nd] June 1989. PW-5 stated that atabout 02:00 p.m. on 20[th] June 1989, he received a secret informationthat both the boys had been murdered by the present appellant inH
association with others. Therefore, he along with the persons mentionedabove went to the house of the appellant and made inquiries. Thoughinitially, the appellant denied, after some persuasion, he admitted inpresence of the aforesaid persons that he and four others (co-accused)had killed both the boys by strangulating them and had concealed theirbodies in the field of one Bhagirath at Nakki Bari. PW-5 along with theappellant and others went to the said field. The appellant removed thesoil and both dead bodies were found. Thereafter, he came to the policestation and lodged a complaint.
3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW-1 Radhey PrasadMandal; PW-2 Jagdish Prasad Chourasia; PW-3 Shobha Lal Mandal;PW-4 Kisan Lal Mandal; PW-5 the complainant himself; and PW-6 SatyaNarain Mandal were declared hostile. According to the prosecution case,the appellant had made a confession in presence of these witnesses.PW-7 Md. Tamijuddin; PW-8 Suchai Mandal and PW-9 Hira LalChourasia supported the prosecution case and deposed about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to them. PW-10 is a doctorwho performed the autopsy. The Investigation Officer was not examined.The conviction of the appellant is based on the extra-judicial confession.Both the Courts have believed the prosecution case regarding the allegedextra-judicial confession.
4. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for theparties, we have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnessesand in particular P.W. nos.7 to 9 and the findings recorded by the courtsbelow.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRA-JUDICIALCONFESSION
5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is wellsettled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a convictioncan be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided thatthe confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free ofany inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also dependson the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of humanconduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed byhim only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, aperson would not make a confession to someone who is totally a strangerto him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aconfession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As amatter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicialconfession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires morecredibility.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
B
6. As narrated earlier, PW-1 to PW-6 including the complainanthimself whose son was killed did not support prosecution. The case ofthe prosecution was that the appellant had confessed to PW-1 to PW-9.We have carefully analyzed the evidence of P.W. Nos.7, 8 and 9 whowere the only material prosecution witnesses. Here is the analysis ofCtheir evidence:- (a)PW-7 has stated that on 20[th] June 1989 at about 02:30 p.m.when he along with PW-1 and PW-6 and other personswere talking near the gate of Bhagirath Mandal, PW-5came there and told them that he had received informationthat Pawan(appellant) had murdered his son Kamlesh andnephew Bulla and had concealed their dead bodies. Theprosecution has made no attempt to investigate into thesource of the alleged information received by PW-5.
D
(b) The version of PW-8 Suchai is different. PW-8 Suchai’sEname is not mentioned in the complaint of PW-5. PW-8Suchai claims that on 06[th] June 1989, he heard the appellanttelling two persons that he had murdered two boys and hadconcealed their dead bodies. It is pertinent to note thatthough PW-8 had knowledge about the alleged confessionmade by the appellant on 06[th] June 1989, he did not complainFto the police. The omission to report to the police is verysignificant as he was admittedly the uncle of the deceasedBulla. His silence creates more suspicion about theprosecution case.
(c) PW-8 stated that he along with others went along with theGappellant to the place where dead bodies were buried. Hisversion is that the appellant made a confession when healong with others was sitting at the gate of Bhagirath. Thewitness has not stated that PW-1 to PW-9 visited the houseof the appellant on 20[th] June 1989 when the appellant madethe extra-judicial confession. Though PW-8 did not say so, H
PW-9 Hiralal stated that it was PW-8 who took out thedead bodies after some digging was made by the appellant.
(d) As far as PW-9 Hiralal is concerned, he is the father ofBulla. He has not stated the place at which the extra-judicialconfession was allegedly made by the appellant. He simplystated that 19 days after his son went missing, the appellantdisclosed in his presence to one Bhagirath (not examinedby the prosecution), PW-1, PW-4 and PW-6 that he hadmurdered both the boys and had concealed their dead bodiesin the field of Bhagirath. His version is that it was Suchai(PW-8) who took out the bodies. However, PW-8 himselfdid not state that he took out the bodies.
(e) According to the version of PW-7, PW-1 did not informhim about any extra-judicial confession made by the appellantbut PW-1 informed him that he had received the informationthat the appellant had murdered both boys. Out of thesethree witnesses, PW-7 is the only witness who stated thatthe appellant made the confession in his own house.
(f) According to the version of PW-7, in the afternoon of 20[th]June 1989, he was informed by PW-5 that the appellanthad murdered both the boys. There is no explanation as towhy PW-7 did not approach the police. This conduct of thewitness is unnatural.
(g) None of these three witnesses who supported theprosecution, have stated that the appellant was either theirrelative or a close acquaintance. In fact, they have not evenstated that they personally knew the appellant. There isnothing on record to show that the relationship between theappellant and these three witnesses was such that theappellant had implicit faith in these three witnesses and,therefore, he confided with them.
(h) Even after the alleged extra-judicial confession ofcommitting murder was made before them by the appellant,PW-7 to PW-9 did not report to the police. The prosecutioncase is that without informing the police, they accompaniedthe appellant to the field of Bhagirath where dead bodieswere found buried. This conduct of PW-7 to PW-9 is unusual A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aand unnatural. PW-7 to PW-9 are not consistent about theplace at which the alleged confession was made.
(i) There is no explanation offered by the prosecution for notexamining Bhagirath who was also present according toPW-9 when the alleged confession was made. This omissionBbecomes more significant as the dead bodies were allegedlyfound in his land.
CONCLUSION
7. Hence, the prosecution’s case about extra-judicial confessiondoes not inspire confidence at all. Moreover, there are no otherCcircumstances brought on record which could support or corroboratethe prosecution case. Therefore, in our considered view, the evidence inform of the extra-judicial confession of the appellant deserves to bediscarded. Admittedly, there is no other evidence against the appellant.Therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained at all.
DAccordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside and the appellant isacquitted of the offences alleged against him. The bail bonds of theappellant stand cancelled. The appeal is allowed.
E
Divya Pandey
(Assisted by : Sanika Thakare and Shevali Monga, LCRAs)
Appeal allowed.
F
G
H