Extra-judicial confession lacks evidentiary value if made to persons not reposed with confidence by accused.

The State appealed an order dated 31.12.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, acquitting the respondent of charges under Sections 302 and 404 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 09.07.1996, the accused strangulated his grandmother, Raniben, over a property dispute involving his grandfather, Govabhai.

It was further alleged the accused stole her gold earrings and silver prayer beads.

The prosecution’s case rested primarily on an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused several months later (November 1996) before PW1, PW2, and PW3 following the death of another kin, Bharat.

The trial court acquitted the accused, citing a lack of reliable evidence and inconsistencies in the recovery of ornaments.

1. Whether the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the respondent was voluntary, true, and reliable enough to form the basis of a conviction.

2. Whether the recovery of the deceased's ornaments from the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt to corroborate the charge.

3. Whether there existed manifest illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal warranting interference by the Appellate Court.

The Court applied Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence" reinforced by an acquittal.

It followed Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, holding that appellate interference is limited to cases of perversity or manifest miscarriage of justice.

Regarding extra-judicial confessions, the Court relied on State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, which establish that such confessions are "weak evidence" and must be scrutinized for voluntariness, truthfulness, and the relationship of trust between the accused and the witness.

The Court found the extra-judicial confession highly improbable because the witnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3) were not confidants of the accused, meeting him only occasionally.

Their conduct was deemed inconsistent with ordinary human behavior; they allowed the accused to move freely and return home for hours after he allegedly confessed to multiple murders before informing the police.

Furthermore, the recovery of ornaments under Exh. 14 was discredited as one panch witness (PW4) turned hostile, and the grandson (PW9) admitted he never reported the items missing despite noticing their absence shortly after the death.

The Court noted the lack of any prior complaint regarding theft, which weakened the link between the recovered items and the alleged murder.

The High Court dismissed the State's appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal.

The Court concluded that the Trial Court’s view was a reasonable and possible one based on the evidence, and in the absence of perversity or manifest illegality, the appellate court cannot substitute its own view to overturn an acquittal; consequently, the respondent's bail bonds were cancelled.