Conviction Based on Unreliable Ocular Evidence and Exculpatory Confessional Statements Cannot Sustain a Finding of Guilt

On May 27, 2013, Bhushan Singh and Ram Govind Singh were shot dead in Village Trila

The prosecution alleged that members of the extremist group PLFI, including Jetha Kachhap, opened fire while a conspiracy had been hatched by local MLA Paulus Surin and others due to the deceased being a "police spy" and his involvement in a contested rape case

The Trial Court convicted Paulus Surin under Sections 302/34 and 120B IPC, and Jetha Kachhap under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 379/34, 120B IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act

The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of direct evidence, material improvements by witnesses, and the inadmissibility of a non-inculpatory statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the eye-witness testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 was reliable enough to sustain a conviction for murder

3. Whether the statement of Jetha Kachhap recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. constituted a valid confession

The Court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), and Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) of the Indian Penal Code

It examined the procedural safeguards and evidentiary value of confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), emphasizing that a statement must be "self-inculpatory" to be used as a confession against the maker

The Court also relied on the principle that prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that material improvements and contradictions in witness testimony (consistent with Section 161 vs. Section 164/trial testimony) can vitiate the credibility of ocular evidence

The High Court found the prosecution's theory of conspiracy unsubstantiated, noting that the alleged co-conspirators had already been acquitted, and an individual cannot conspire with himself

The Court observed that P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 were likely not eye-witnesses at the exact spot of the shooting but were inside their house, evidenced by the 35 bullet marks on the house walls making P.W. 1’s claim of safely fleeing while being shot at "completely impossible"

Regarding Jetha Kachhap’s Section 164 statement, the Court ruled it was "exculpatory" rather than "inculpatory" as he did not admit to firing, and noted procedural lapses where the accused was not given "cool mind" time to reflect before recording the statement

furthermore, the alleged motive (threatening in April 2013) was deemed a material improvement not supported by independent evidence

The court also found the 2011 threatening letter (Ext. D-1) too remote to establish a causal link to the 2013 murder

The direct answers to the issues were that the ocular evidence was unreliable and the Section 164 certificate did not amount to a confession

The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated April 6, 2024, and April 10, 2024. Both appeals were allowed, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith from jail custody