“The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt even when the accused admits guilt; a confession must be voluntary, true, and properly recorded.”
Court’s Decision:
The Patna High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the conviction and life sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, and acquitted the appellant. The Court found that the appellant’s confession under Section 164 CrPC was improperly recorded, not voluntary in nature, and that the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was directed to be released unless required in any other case.
Facts:
An eight-year-old boy went missing during a village marriage ceremony, and his body was found the next morning near the Ganga riverbank with his mouth filled with sand. The appellant was alleged to have killed the victim as revenge, suspecting the victim’s mother of helping the appellant’s sister elope. The prosecution relied heavily on the appellant’s alleged extra-judicial confession to villagers and his confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC. A minor witness claimed the appellant took the victim before the murder, forming the ‘last seen’ evidence.
Issues:
- Whether the appellant’s conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and confessional statement was sustainable in law.
- Whether the confession under Section 164 CrPC was properly recorded, voluntary, and reliable.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence and last seen evidence established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellant argued that:
- There was no direct evidence, only circumstantial, with missing links in the chain required under Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.
- The confession under Section 164 CrPC was improperly recorded, lacked voluntariness, and was not corroborated by independent evidence, relying on S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu.
- The ‘last seen’ evidence from a minor witness (PW-9) was unreliable as his statement was not recorded under Section 161 CrPC, and his competency as a child witness was not properly examined.
- The trial court relied improperly on an unchallenged examination-in-chief despite the burden of proof remaining on the prosecution.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The State argued that:
- The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish guilt, supported by the last seen evidence and the appellant’s confession.
- The confession was voluntary, truthful, recorded in judicial custody, and corroborated by medical and other witness testimonies.
- The chain of circumstances, including motive, last seen evidence, recovery of the body, and the confession, established the guilt of the appellant.
Analysis of the Law:
The Court examined:
- Principles of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda requiring a complete chain of circumstances.
- The requirements for admissibility and reliability of confessions under Section 164 CrPC, emphasizing voluntariness, truthfulness, and proper recording as per S. Arul Raja and Aloke Nath Dutta.
- The law on the reliability of child witnesses and last seen evidence as per Pradeep v. State of Haryana and Ram Lakhan Singh.
- The principles governing extra-judicial confessions as per Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu and recent cases emphasizing caution and corroboration for reliance.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referred to:
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra on circumstantial evidence and the panchsheel principles.
- S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu and Aloke Nath Dutta on the admissibility and testing of confessions under Section 164 CrPC.
- Pradeep v. State of Haryana on recording child witness testimony.
- Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ramu Appa Mahapatar on extra-judicial confessions.
- Ram Lakhan Singh on the limitations of untested last seen evidence.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court found:
- The confession was improperly recorded in a leading-question format, lacked voluntariness assessment, and could not be safely relied upon.
- The last seen evidence by PW-9 was unreliable due to his minor status, lack of Section 161 CrPC recording, and inconsistencies in the narrative.
- The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, with crucial missing links undermining the case’s conclusiveness.
- The trial court erred in heavily relying on the confession and unchallenged witness statements while ignoring the prosecution’s burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion:
The conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The improper confession, unreliable last seen evidence, and incomplete circumstantial chain necessitated acquittal to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Implications:
- Reinforces the requirement for confessions to be voluntary, truthful, and properly recorded before reliance.
- Clarifies that the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt cannot be bypassed by an unchallenged examination-in-chief or confession alone.
- Underscores the cautious approach required in relying on last seen and extra-judicial confessions in circumstantial cases.
Brief on Cases Referred:
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda: Set out the five golden principles for circumstantial evidence, requiring a complete, unbroken chain excluding innocence.
- S. Arul Raja: Emphasized voluntariness, truthfulness, and corroboration in accepting Section 164 CrPC confessions.
- Pradeep v. State of Haryana: Stressed proper procedure in recording child witness testimony.
- Sahadevan: Held extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence requiring corroboration.
- Ram Lakhan Singh: Highlighted limitations of last seen evidence when the witness’s prior statements are missing.
FAQs:
1. What was the main reason for the acquittal in this murder conviction?
The Patna High Court acquitted the appellant because the confession under Section 164 CrPC was improperly recorded, the last seen evidence was unreliable, and the circumstantial evidence did not form a complete chain to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Can a confession under Section 164 CrPC alone justify a conviction?
No, the Court clarified that even if a confession is recorded, it must be voluntary, truthful, properly recorded, and corroborated by other reliable evidence before it can form the sole basis for conviction.
3. What happens if a child witness’s statement under Section 161 CrPC is not recorded?
While it does not automatically invalidate the testimony, it limits the defence’s ability to test credibility, requiring the court to examine such evidence with greater caution, especially in serious cases like murder.
