The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by the accused persons convicted in an alleged case of murder.
While acquitting the accused in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court ruled that extra-judicial confessions made in a police station before police officers or others cannot be relied upon.
The judgment came in an appeal filed by the accused who had been convicted in an alleged murder case.
The Division Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “One another circumstance, heavily relied upon by the trial court and the High Court are the extra judicial confessions made by A2 to various persons, but all inside the police station. The First Information Report was on the complaint made by PW-18, the wife of the deceased, though the information first supplied was by A2 in the morning, to PW-15, the SHO and PW-17, the Sentry. Both these extra judicial confessions have been made in the police station before the police officers, even according to the prosecution, on which no reliance can be placed. PW-18, the wife of the deceased deposed that it was A2 who revealed to her the murder of her husband, at the police station, which was the testimony of PW-7 also. The extra judicial confessions and the context in which they were made, within the police station cannot at all be relied upon”, it added.
Factual Background
It was alleged that the first accused, a policeman, had borrowed money from the deceased, another policeman, who was later murdered by the former’s wife, brother, and brother-in-law at his instigation. The deceased, who worked as a driver for a Superintendent of Police, repeatedly demanded repayment of the loan. To settle the issue, the second accused (the wife) lured the deceased to her home under the pretext of repayment. The following day, chilli powder was thrown on his face to immobilize him, after which he was hacked to death with two choppers by the accused. After sunrise, the wife went straight to the police station, confessed to the SHO, and informed him about the body in her house. A constable was then sent to verify the facts, followed by an inquest at her residence, after which the body was taken to the hospital.
The Trial Court found no evidence of instigation and acquitted the first accused. However, the other accused (A2 to A4) were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, upheld the Trial Court’s findings. Dissatisfied with this outcome, the accused approached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the case rested on circumstantial evidence, as the eyewitnesses—claimed to be tenants of the building where the crime occurred—had turned hostile. According to the prosecution, the deceased policeman was killed by the wife of another policeman, assisted by her brother and brother-in-law. After the incident, when the deceased’s wife was informed of the tragedy, she is said to have visited the premises along with her relatives and friends, many of whom were policemen or their spouses.
Citing the doctor’s opinion that the head injuries caused the death and that all internal and external injuries were ante-mortem, the Bench concluded that the death was homicidal. The Bench explained, “Absence of motive is not an imperative circumstance to arrive at a conviction, in a case where there is ocular evidence. The role of motive is not very significant even when circumstances otherwise form an unbreakable chain. Motive only provides another link, and the absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of the accused as held in Babu v. State of Kerala.”
The Bench found no clear motive linking the financial transaction to the crime. The prosecution had alleged that the deceased was called to the second accused’s house over the phone on the pretext of loan repayment. However, the wife never claimed that the deceased had left home for such a purpose, nor was there any definite evidence showing whether he returned home that evening.
The Bench further held that the extrajudicial confessions made by the second accused to different persons inside the police station could not be relied upon. It clarified that Section 25 of the Evidence Act prohibits using any confession made to a police officer against an accused, while Section 26 bars the admissibility of a confession made in police custody unless it is recorded in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
“The fact that confessions were made by both the accused and the recovery was made from one of the accused, A4, leading the police to the spot would restrain us from treating the recovery as an inculpating circumstance against A3 or A4, especially when the confession is taken simultaneously from both the accused”, it further noted.
The Bench stated, “Undisputably, the case is one of circumstantial evidence which is treated as proved only when there is a complete chain of circumstances, comprising cogent and reliable material, providing an unbreakable link, leading only to the culpability of the accused and bringing forth the hypothesis only of guilt and not leading to any reasonable doubt as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused. The presence of the dead body in the house of the accused is also under a cloud and in any event, that, with the absence of a proper explanation cannot by itself bring home a conviction.”
Accordingly, the Bench set aside the conviction, acquitted the accused, and allowed the appeal.