Brief Facts
- The Trial Court, based on the extra judicial confessional statement of accused convicted both the accused in relation to offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and 201/34 IPC. In addition to the extra-judicial confession of witnesses PW-1 and PW-7, the prosecution also placed reliance on the recovery of keys of the shop of the deceased and currency notes from the possession of the Appellant.
- In an appeal preferred by both the accused, the High Court upheld the conviction of accused (Pradeep Kumar) in relation to all the offences and sentenced him, but acquitted accused (Bhainsa alias Nandlal) on all counts.
- Hence, the present appeal filed by the Appellant – accused Pradeep Kumar.
Issues
- Reliability of extra-judicial confessional for convicting the accused.
- In the case of circumstantial evidence, when two views are possible, court should adopt which view?
- When the Supreme Court can reverse the concurrent given by the Trial Court and High Court?
Held
- The appeal was allowed and the Appellant was acquitted of all the charges framed against him. The testimonies of witnesses PW-1 and PW-7 were not found reliable.
- Further, there is no independent corroborated material except for the confessional statement of the accused, which also is not proven on record. Even otherwise, the keys, the currency notes and the blood stained clothes were not sent for chemical analysis. There is only an unexhibited copy of the FSL Report of the alleged blood stained clothes of the Appellant which stands not proven by anyone. Also none has come forward to depose that the accused had kept the keys of the shop with himself, for after all, it is not the case of the prosecution that the shop belonged to the accused.
- Supreme Court relied on Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808, and has held that it is important to note that the cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to the accused must be adopted.
- Supreme Court further added that normally, the court refrains from interfering with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the lower courts. However, in the exceptional circumstances where gross errors are committed, overlooking crying circumstances and well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence leading to miscarriage of justice, it becomes imperative for this court to rectify such errors.
Relevant Para No.
- 20,24,27