Brief Facts
- The Appellant was convicted for murdering his wife on suspicion of the deceased having the illicit intimacy with some other person.
- The case of the prosecution was based on the extra judicial confession made by Appellant to village administrative officer (PW-1). The prosecution further relied on the recovery of the dead body and stick (used for killing the deceased) at the behest of the Appellant.
Issues
- Reliability of the extra judicial confession made after 2 months from the date of alleged incident.
- Reliability of the recovery of dead body at the instance of the Accused when such recovery has been made from an open place not exclusively accessible to Accused.
Held
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered for acquittal of the Accused-Appellant.
- It is impossible to understand why would the appellant meet the Village Administrative Officer, who was a total stranger to him, more than two months after the incident for making a confession. PW1 and the appellant were not known to each other till 10th of August 2006. Normally an accused will confide only with a person in whom he has implicit faith. He would not go to a stranger to make a confession of guilt. The fact that the alleged confession was made by him more than two months after the incident makes it more suspicious.
- The Supreme Court relied on the case of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 259 and further held Extra¬judicial confession is always a weak piece of evidence and in this case, for the reasons which we have recorded earlier, there is serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case regarding the extra¬judicial confession. Therefore, the prosecution case about the extra-judicial confession does not deserve acceptance.
- As far as the alleged recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant is concerned, we must note that the dead body was recovered from a place which was accessible to all. A day prior to the alleged discovery at the instance of the appellant, PW nos.1 and 2 had gone to the place where the dead body was found. It is not the case of the prosecution that the place where the dead body was buried was accessible and known only to the appellant. This also raises serious doubt about the theory of the prosecution about the discovery of the body at the instance of the appellant.
Relevant Para No.
- 7, 10, 12