Vide the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. During investigation, it was revealed that the appellant, accompanied his wife (the deceased) and their son had gone to attend the Fullara Mela organised in Lavpur Gram Panchayat and thereafter, the deceased was alleged to be missing from the said Mela. Choudhury submits that the High Court has grossly erred in reversing the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Sharma, on the contrary, submits that the High Court has rightly found that the extra-judicial confession made before PWs 10 to 12 is trustworthy, reliable and cogent. 1047] “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/remand-of-writ-petition-for-restoration-and-decision-on-merits/
These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” It can thus be seen that this Court has held that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It has been held that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved, and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
The trial court observed that where the prosecution case is entirely based on extra-judicial confession and the prosecution seeks conviction of the accused on that extra- judicial confession, the evidence of the witnesses before whom the alleged confessional statement was made, requires a greater scrutiny to pass the test of credibility.
Upon a proper analysis of the above judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. ( iv )
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/presumption-of-genuine-endorsements-in-cheque-case/
An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. ( v )
For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
The Division Bench of the High Court has relied on the recovery of the blood-stained clothes and the weapon which is alleged to have been used by the appellant in commission of the crime. It has been further held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
In the result, we pass the following order: (i)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/medical-negligence-and-compensation-a-landmark-decision/
The appeal is allowed; (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 15 December 2008 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in Government Appeal No 38 of 1987 convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is quashed and set aside; and (iii) The judgment and order dated 31 March 1987 passed by the trial court acquitting the appellant from the charges levelled against him is affirmed.
Case Title: NIKHIL CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2023 INSC 198)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002269-002269 / 2010
