In CRIMINAL APPEAL No.609 of 2015-SC- Extra-judicial confession is weak piece of evidence especially when it has been retracted during trial; Strong evidence is required to corroborate it: Supreme Court
Justices B.R. Gavai & Vikram Nath [28-02-2023]

Read Order: INDRAJIT DAS v. THE STATE OF TRIPURA 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, March 11, 2023: The Supreme Court has acquitted the appellant-accused in a case of murder after noting that the major links of the chain of circumstances had not been proved by the prosecution evidence.

Referring to the judgments of the Top Court in Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra & Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc, the Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Vikram Nath said, “The basic links in the chain of circumstances starts with motive, then move on to last seen theory, recovery, medical evidence, expert opinions if any and any other additional link which may be part of the chain of circumstances.”

The facts of the case were such that a telephone message by one Mantu Das was received by the Kailashahar Police Station that a huge quantity of blood had been seen on the Kailashahar-Kumarghat Road near Shantipur. The said telephone message was received by the first witness whereafter he along with Sub-Inspector proceeded for the said place.

At the spot, the first witness found blood on the road side, blood-stained knife, one thread and some broken pieces of glass which could be said to be of the rear-view mirror of a motor cycle. Further investigation was made which led to visible marks of dragging some heavy article in the jungle on the side of the road. 

While the investigation was still being carried out, the Police Station received information from the seventh witness that his nephew Kaushik Sarkar was missing since the previous evening.The said information was to the effect that Kaushik Sarkar had gone out in the previous evening on his bike but had not returned. 

According to the Investigating Officer, the accused persons confessed before him that they had gone to Fatikroy and Kanchanbari area on the bike of the deceased Kaushik Sarkar. 

On the way they had purchased a bottle of alcohol and consumed it. Kaushik was sitting on the motor cycle and both the accused  assaulted Kaushik Sarkar. They threw the helmet, purse and dragged the dead body and the motor cycle to the nearby river and threw them in the river.

The accused juvenile K was tried under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The present appellant was tried by the regular Sessions Court. Upon charge being framed and read out, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The appellant preferred appeal before the High Court which had since been dismissed by the impugned judgment as the High Court was also of the view that the prosecution had been successful in proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The Bench took note of the fact that this was a case of circumstantial evidence as no one had seen the commission of crime.While affirming that the prosecution had not come forward with any motive whatsoever as to why the appellant along with the co-accused juvenile K would commit the said crime, the Bench also noticed that even the Trial Court and the High Court in the absence of any evidence had not been able to record a finding on the motive for the commission of the crime.

Placing reliance on the judgments in Kuna Alias Sanjaya Behera vs. State of Odisha  and Ranganayaki vs. State by Inspector of Police, the Bench held, “In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive has an important role to play. Motive may also have a role to play even in a case of direct evidence but it carries much greater importance in a case of circumstantial evidence than a case of direct evidence. It is an important link in the chain of circumstances.”

According to both the confessions of the accused, the appellant as also juvenile K were waiting at a culvert near the Fatikroy bazar where Kaushik Sarkar came on his bike at about half past. From there all three of them left on the bike. However, near the circuit house he stopped the bike and wanted to check whether his mother has come home from office. Both of them waited near the circuit house and Kaushik Sarkar after checking at home again came back to circuit house from where they left for Kumarghat. 

As per the Bench, if the extra-judicial confession was to be accepted, the statement of last seen theory given by the mother became difficult to be given any credibility. However, the statement of the 25th witness appeared to be an improvement only to develop the last seen theory. 

The Bench also opined that neither in the telephone call of the witness recorded at the police station referred to Kaushik leaving in the evening along with the appellant and juvenile K nor do the statements of the other witnesses under Section 161 CrPC mentioned the name of the appellant and juvenile K having been seen leaving with Kaushik from his residence. Two other witnesses were also examined in support of the last seen theory but they also did not inspire any confidence, the Bench observed.

On the issue of recoveries being made from an open place, the Bench observed that the dragging of some heavy object from the place where the blood-stains were noticed, knife was recovered, up to the edge of the river and then recovering the motor bike from the place from the bed of the river just below where the dragging marks had come to an end was something quite normal and expected. It was not a place which could be in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant.

“The extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial. It requires strong evidence to corroborate it and also it must be established that it was completely voluntary and truthful”, the Bench stated while also clarifying that no corroborating evidence was found to support the extra- judicial confession and the evidence led by prosecution was inconsistent with the same.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench held that the appellant would be entitled to benefit of doubt.