Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2230 of 2010
Pawan Kumar Chourasia …..Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The appellant who is accused no.1 was prosecuted along with
four others for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 as well as Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
‘IPC’). The appellant has been convicted for both offences. For the
offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, he has been
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed
the conviction of the appellant, whereas the remaining four accused
were acquitted.
Signature Not Verified
2. First informant is one Lakhi Prasad Chourasia (PW5). First
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.03.14
17:30:22 IST
Reason:
th
Information Report (FIR) was registered on 20 June 1989. The
1
statement of the first informant on the basis of which the FIR was
registered notes that it has been recorded in the presence of Radhey
Prasad Mandal (PW1); Kisan Lal Mandal (PW4); Satya Narain
Mandal (PW6); and Mohammad Tamijuddin (PW7). It is alleged that
th
on 10 June 1989, PW5 had lodged a missing report. The missing
report was in respect of his son Kamlesh and nephew Bulla, son of
nd
one Hira Chaurasia (PW9). They were missing from 02 June 1989.
th
PW5 stated that at about 02:00 p.m. on 20 June 1989, he received
a secret information that both the boys had been murdered by the
present appellant in association with others. Therefore, he along with
the persons mentioned above went to the house of the appellant and
made inquiries. Though initially, the appellant denied, after some
persuasion, he admitted in presence of the aforesaid persons that he
and four others (coaccused) had killed both the boys by
strangulating them and had concealed their bodies in the field of one
Bhagirath at Nakki Bari. PW5 along with the appellant and others
went to the said field. The appellant removed the soil and both dead
bodies were found. Thereafter, he came to the police station and
lodged a complaint.
The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW1 Radhey Prasad
3.
Mandal; PW2 Jagdish Prasad Chourasia; PW3 Shobha Lal Mandal;
PW4 Kisan Lal Mandal; PW5 the complainant himself; and PW6
Satya Narain Mandal were declared hostile. According to the
2
prosecution case, the appellant had made a confession in presence of
these witnesses. PW7 Md. Tamijuddin; PW8 Suchai Mandal and
PW9 Hira Lal Chourasia supported the prosecution case and
deposed about the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to
them. PW10 is a doctor who performed the autopsy. The
Investigation Officer was not examined. The conviction of the
appellant is based on the extrajudicial confession. Both the Courts
have believed the prosecution case regarding the alleged extrajudicial
confession.
4. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, we have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses
and in particular P.W. nos.7 to 9 and the findings recorded by the
courts below.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION
As far as extrajudicial confession is concerned, the law is well
5.
settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a
conviction can be sustained on the basis of extrajudicial confession
provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It
should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such
confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by
the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would
confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in
whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a
3
confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the
Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping
in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule,
corroboration is not required. However, if an extrajudicial confession
is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more
credibility.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
6. As narrated earlier, PW1 to PW6 including the complainant
himself whose son was killed did not support prosecution. The case of
the prosecution was that the appellant had confessed to PW1 to PW
9. We have carefully analyzed the evidence of P.W. Nos.7, 8 and 9
who were the only material prosecution witnesses. Here is the
analysis of their evidence:
th
(a) PW7 has stated that on 20 June 1989 at about 02:30 p.m.
when he along with PW1 and PW6 and other persons were
talking near the gate of Bhagirath Mandal, PW5 came there
and told them that he had received information that
Pawan(appellant) had murdered his son Kamlesh and nephew
Bulla and had concealed their dead bodies. The prosecution
has made no attempt to investigate into the source of the
alleged information received by PW5.
4
(b) The version of PW8 Suchai is different. PW8 Suchai’s name
is not mentioned in the complaint of PW5. PW8 Suchai
th
claims that on 06 June 1989, he heard the appellant telling
two persons that he had murdered two boys and had concealed
their dead bodies. It is pertinent to note that though PW8 had
knowledge about the alleged confession made by the appellant
th
on 06 June 1989, he did not complain to the police. The
omission to report to the police is very significant as he was
admittedly the uncle of the deceased Bulla. His silence creates
more suspicion about the prosecution case.
(c)
PW8 stated that he along with others went along with the
appellant to the place where dead bodies were buried. His
version is that the appellant made a confession when he along
with others was sitting at the gate of Bhagirath. The witness
has not stated that PW1 to PW9 visited the house of the
th
appellant on 20 June 1989 when the appellant made the
extrajudicial confession. Though PW8 did not say so, PW9
Hiralal stated that it was PW8 who took out the dead bodies
after some digging was made by the appellant.
(d)
As far as PW9 Hiralal is concerned, he is the father of Bulla.
He has not stated the place at which the extrajudicial
confession was allegedly made by the appellant. He simply
5
stated that 19 days after his son went missing, the appellant
disclosed in his presence to one Bhagirath (not examined by
the prosecution), PW1, PW4 and PW6 that he had murdered
both the boys and had concealed their dead bodies in the field
of Bhagirath. His version is that it was Suchai (PW8) who
took out the bodies. However, PW8 himself did not state that
he took out the bodies.
(e) According to the version of PW7, PW1 did not inform him
about any extrajudicial confession made by the appellant but
PW1 informed him that he had received the information that
the appellant had murdered both boys. Out of these three
witnesses, PW7 is the only witness who stated that the
appellant made the confession in his own house.
th
(f) According to the version of PW7, in the afternoon of 20 June
1989, he was informed by PW5 that the appellant had
murdered both the boys. There is no explanation as to why
PW7 did not approach the police. This conduct of the witness
is unnatural.
(g) None of these three witnesses who supported the prosecution,
have stated that the appellant was either their relative or a
close acquaintance. In fact, they have not even stated that they
personally knew the appellant. There is nothing on record to
show that the relationship between the appellant and these
6
three witnesses was such that the appellant had implicit faith
in these three witnesses and, therefore, he confided with them.
(h) Even after the alleged extrajudicial confession of committing
murder was made before them by the appellant, PW7 to PW9
did not report to the police. The prosecution case is that
without informing the police, they accompanied the appellant
to the field of Bhagirath where dead bodies were found buried.
This conduct of PW7 to PW9 is unusual and unnatural. PW7
to PW9 are not consistent about the place at which the alleged
confession was made.
(i) There is no explanation offered by the prosecution for not
examining Bhagirath who was also present according to PW9
when the alleged confession was made. This omission
becomes more significant as the dead bodies were allegedly
found in his land.
CONCLUSION
7. Hence, the prosecution’s case about extrajudicial confession
does not inspire confidence at all. Moreover, there are no other
circumstances brought on record which could support or corroborate
the prosecution case. Therefore, in our considered view, the evidence
in form of the extrajudicial confession of the appellant deserves to be
discarded. Admittedly, there is no other evidence against the
appellant. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be
7
sustained at all. Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside
and the appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged against him.
The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled. The appeal is
allowed.
…………………………………J.
[ABHAY S. OKA]
…………………………………J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
New Delhi
March 14, 2023.
8