Brief Facts
- The Appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the appeal of the appellant while confirming the conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302/34 of the IPC and 201 of IPC whereby he was awarded imprisonment for life and allied sentences to run concurrently.
- The Appellant and Juvenile “K” were alleged to have accompanied the deceased on his bike and on their way, they purchased the bottle of alcohol. The Appellant and Juvenile “K” were alleged to have killed the deceased with the Vojalis (Big Kinfe) and thereafter dragged the dead body and motorcycle to a nearby river. On complaint, Police recovered limb of a dead body, but the dead body was not recovered. Appellant was impleaded on the basis of extra judicial confession, last seen theory and recovery of Vojalis from the edge of the river.
Issues
- Whether extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence?
- Whether the Accused can be convicted in the case when the dead body has not been recovered?
- Importance of proving motive in the case based on circumstantial evidence.
- Relevancy of recoveries made from the open place.
Held
- Supreme Court acquitted the Appellant as major links of the chain of circumstances have not been proved by the prosecution evidence.
- The extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and especially when it has been retracted during trial.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 principle of corpus delicti has judgments on both sides stating that conviction can be recorded in the absence of the recovery of the corpus and the other view that no conviction could be recorded in the absence of recovery of the corpus. The later view is for the reason that if subsequently the corpus appears as alive, someone may have been convicted and sentenced and suffered incarceration for no crime committed by him.
- 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.
- 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.
- Insofar as the recoveries are concerned which again is an important link in the chain of circumstances, the recoveries have been from an open place. The dragging of some heavy object from the place where the blood-stains were noticed and ‘vojali’ 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 is something quite normal and expected. It was not a place which could be in the exclusive knowledge of the appellant.
Relevant Para No.
- 12,15, 16, 20, 21, 22