Rajiv Nath v. State of Haryana

CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-1-INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoAT CHANDIGARH ooo oooCRA-D-376-DB-2004oooo DateoofoDecision:o08.04.2025 RAJIVoNATH ...oAppellant Versus STATEoOFoHARYANAo ...Respondent CORAM:o HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoGURVINDERoSINGHoGILL HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEooJASJIToSINGHoBEDI Present: Mr.oAravoGupta,oAmicusoCuriae forotheoappellant.o Mr.oR.S.oArya,oAddl.oA.G.,oHaryana. **** JASJIToSINGHoBEDI,oJ. Theopresentoappealohasobeenofiledoagainstotheojudgmentoof convictionoandoorderoofosentenceodatedo03/06.04.2005opassedobyotheoAddl. SessionsoJudge,oPanipat.

¶2The o FIR o was o registered o on o 07.01.2003, o the o judgment o of convictionoandoorderoofosentenceopassedobyotheoAddl.oSessionsoJudge,oPanipat isodatedo03/06.04.2005,otheoappealowasofiledoono12.07.2004oandotheomatterois beingotakenoupoforohearingonowoi.e.oafteroaoperiodoofomoreothano23oyearsofrom theodateooforegistrationoofotheoFIR.

¶3Theobriefofactsoofotheoprosecutionocaseoareothatoono07.01.2003, SandeepoSingh,oSI,oSHO,oalongwithootheropoliceoofficialsowasopresentonear GandaoNala,oBarsatoRoad,oPanipat,oinoconnectionowithotheopatrollingowhere complainantoPrithvioSinghosonoofoJogaoRam,oJat,oresidentoofovillageoChandoli, CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-2-DistrictoPanipat,ometohimoatoGandaoNalaoofoBarsatoRoadoandogotorecordedohis statement,oEx.PDotootheoeffectothatoheowasoanoagriculturist.oThereowasoaoDera andoMandironearohisoFields.oTheosaidoDeraowasosituatedoinothreeoBighasoando18 bighasoofoagriculturalolandowhichowasofitoforocultivationoandowasoownedobyothe Dera.oInotheosaidoDera,oBabaoShivoNathoandohisodiscipleoMayaoRamosonoofoSita Ram,oBarber,oofoKhotpura,owereoresiding.oOno07.01.2003,oatoabouto10.00oa.m. heohadogoneotoohisofieldsofororoamingoandowhenoheowentoinsideotheoDera,ohe sawothatoBabaoShivoNathoandohisodiscipleoMayaoRam,obothowereolyingodeadoon aocotoinoaoroomosituatedonearotheogateoofotheosaidoDera.oTheirofacesowereoburnt withoacid.oSomeounknownopersonohadomurderedothemowhileosleepingoinothe nightoafterosprinklingoacidoonoaccountoofosomeorivalry.oTheosaidoroomowasonot havingoanyodoor.oThereafteroheoinformedoDevioSingh,obrotheroofotheoSarpanch ofotheovillageoandootherovillagers.oManyopersonsowereopresentoatotheospot.oHe andoDevioSinghowereogoingotooreportotheomatterowhenotheopoliceometothem nearoGandaoNalaobridgeoandoheo(complainant)ogotorecordedohisostatement.oSI SandeepoSinghothenomadeohisoendorsement,oEx.PD/2oonotheosaidostatement andosentotheosameotootheopoliceoStation,oonotheobasisoofowhichoformaloFIR Ex.PD/1owasorecorded.oTheoSIovisitedotheospot,ogototheoplaceophotographed, preparedoinquestoproceedingsoEx.PJoandoEx.PJ/1oonobothotheodeadobodiesoand sentotheosameotootheoCiviloHospital,oPanipatoforopostmortemoexaminationoby movingoapplication,oEx.PK,oDr.oK.L.oChopraoalongwithoDr.oLataoSangwan conductedopostmortemoexaminationoonobothotheodeadobodiesoofoMayaoRam andoShivoNath,ovideoPMR,oEx.oPAoandoEx.PB,orespectively.oTheyoopinedothat theocauseoofodeathoinocaseoofoMayaoRam,oinotheiroopinionowasodueotoohead CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-3-injuryowhichowasoantemortemoinonatureoandosufficientotoocauseodeathoin ordinaryocourseoofoeventsowhereasoinocaseoofoShivoNathoitowasohaemorrhage, shockoandoinjuryotoovitaloorgansoi.e.obrainoandolungoandotheoinjuriesowere antemortemoinonatureoandosufficientotoocauseodeathoinotheoordinaryocourseoof events.oTheoInvestigatingoOfficerotookointoopossessionohalfoaobottleoofoliquor andooneoemptyosteelotumbleroafteroconvertingothemointooaosealedoparcelosealed withosealoMSovideomemooEx.PLoandosealoafterouseowasohandedooverotooASI Dharambir.oTheoInvestigatingoOfficeroalsoopreparedoaoroughositeoplan,oEx.PM, withocorrectomarginalonotesoofotheospot,oandorecordedoostatementsoofowitnesses. HCoDalbiroSinghoproducedoaosealedoparcelocontainingoclothesoofotheodeceased soohandedooverotoohimobyotheodoctoroafteropostmortemoexamination,obeforeoSI SandeepoSingh,owhootookotheosameointoopossessionovideomemooEx.PH.oOn

06.02.2003,oRoopoChand,oSarpanchoofovillageoChandolioandoSukhbiroSinghoof Chandoli,obeforeowhomotheoaccusedohadomadeoanoextraojudicialoconfession aboutotheocommissionoofotheooffence,oproducedotheoaccusedobeforeothe InvestigatingoOfficer,owhoorecordedocontentsoofotheoextraojudicialoconfession, videomemooEx.PE/1oandoalsoorecordedostatementsoofotheowitnesses,oarrested theoaccusedoandothenoonocompletionoofoinvestigations,otheoaccusedowasosentoup forotrial.

4.o Videoorderodatedo16.05.2003,otheoaccusedowasocharge-sheetedoU/s 302oIPCotoowhichoheopleadedonotoguiltyoandoclaimedotrial.

5.o Inoorderotooproveoitsocase,otheoprosecutionoexaminedoDr.oK.L. Chopra,oasoPW.1,owhooconductedopostmortemoexaminationoonotheodeadobodies ofoMayaoRamoandoShivoNath,oandoprovedopostmortemoreportsoEx.PAoand CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-4-

67.P4,orespectively,oPirthioSin"h,ocomplainant,oasoPA.)BoRoopoChandosonoof GianioRamoasoPA.%BoSultanoSin"hoAS-oasoPA.(BoHCoRan!iroSin"hoasoPA.*B RamoChanderoPat.arioasoPA.'BoMHCoRandhiroSin"hoasoPA./BoHCo5al!ir Sin"hoasoPA.8BoS-oSandeepoSin"h,o-nvesti"atin"o2fficeroasoPA.CBoRa#esh 9umar o Consta!le o as o PA. o 0$B o and o HC o Sushil o 9umar o as o PA.00. o he prosecutionoalsootenderedoinoevidenceoreportoofo,S=oaso67.P,.oPAsoPaleoRam, 5evioSin"h,oSu1h!iroSin"h,o5r.o=ataoSan".anoandoSat!iro.ereo"ivenoupoas unnecessary. '. heo"istoofotheostatementoofotheorelevantoprosecutiono.itnesses areoasounder:? 5r.o9.=.oChoprao.asoe7aminedoasoPA0.oHeoconductedothe postmortemoe7aminationoonotheodeado!odiesoofoMayaoRamoandoShivo3ath.oHis depositionoisoasounder:? "On 07.01.2003, I alongwith Dr. Lata Sangwan, conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Maya Ram son of Sita Ram, R/o Village Khotpura, aged about 80*65 Yrs. The body was identified by Devi Singh son of Giani Ram, and Sukhbir son of Daya Nand, R/o Chandoli. The dead body was brought by HC Dalbir Singh No.909. We found the followings:* It was the dead body of an average built and nourished male with right eye closed. Skin of face, front of neck and small areas on sides of neck were chemically burnt. Soft tissues in these areas were also chemically burnt. Teeth and bones were visible and there were no soft tissues over there. He was wearing Bhagwan coloured shirt, red sweater, another Bhagwan coloured shirt, grey brown sweater, green Banian, white Dhoti, checkdar Parna, and a black thread with a metallic piece in it around the neck. Rigor mortis was present. He had following injuries on his body:* CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-5-

¶1Left eye ball, eye lids, and eye brows were missing. Nose was also missing. There was fracture of nasal bores, maxilla of left side, left frontal, parietal, and temporal bones into many pieces. There was haematoma covering the brain. Frontal lobes of brain were badly lacerated. Clotted blood was present in brain tissues. Stomach was healthy and contained semi digested food. Small intestines were healthy and contained chyle and gases. Large intestines were healthy and contained faecal matter and gases. All other organs were healthy. The cause of death in this case in our opinion was head injury which was antermortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of events. The followings were handed over to the police after the postmortem examination:*

¶1Well stitched dead body.

¶2Copy of postmortem report.

¶3Police papers numbering 1 to 18 initialled by us.

¶4A parcel bearing two seals and containing belongings of the deceased.

¶5Sample seal. The probable duration between injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was within 6 to 36 hours. Ex.PA is the correct carbon copy of the Postmortem report prepared by us and it bears signatures. On the same day, we also conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Shiv Nath son of unknown, R/o Chandoli Dera, aged about 70*80 Yrs. The body was identified by Devi Singh son of Giani Ram and Sukhbir son of Daya Chand of village Chandoli and it was brought by HC Dalbir Singh No.909. We observed the followings:* It was the dead body of an average built and nourished male with eyes closed. Skin of face, front and sides of neck CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-6-alongwith soft tissues were chemically burnt. Bones and teeth were visible without soft tissues on bones. He was wearing a Sleti colour shirt, white Dhoti, Bhagwan colour Chaddar on head and Kundal in both eyes. Rigor mortis was present. We found the following injuries:*

¶1There was depression on forehead. On dissection clotted blood was present in scalp. Frontal bones were fractured. There was big haematoma covering the brain. Both frontal lobes of brain were lacerated and clotted blood was present in the brain tissues.

¶2All the soft tissues including trachea, larynx and oesophagus upto sternum were missing. Vertebrae were visible.

¶3There was reddish bruise 10cm x 3cm on right shoulder and proximal part of right arm. On dissection clotted blood was present in the soft tissues. There was fracture of right humerus.

¶4There was a reddish bruise 8cm x 4cm on the upper part of right side of chest. the On dissection clotted blood was present rd th thin the soft tissues. There was fracture of 3 , 4 and 5 ribs on right side. Right pleural cavity was filled with blood. Right lung was injured. Stomach was healthy and contained semi digested food. Small intestines were healthy and contained chyle and gases. Large intestines were healthy and containing faecal matter. Al other organs were healthy. In our opinion the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage, shock and injury to vital organs i.e. brain and lung. The injuries were antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of events. Ex.PB is the correct carbon copy of the PMR prepared by us and original is in my hand which bears our signatures. We handed over the followings to the Police:*

¶1Well stitched dead body.

¶2Copy of PMR CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-7-

3.oPoliceopapersonumberingo1otoo14oinitialledobyous.

4.oAoparcelobearingotwoosealsoandocontainingobelongingsoofothe deceased.

5.oAosampleoseal. Theoprobableodurationobetweenoinjuriesoandodeathowasovariable andobetweenoandopostmortemowasowithino6otoo36ohours. InjuryoNo.o1oonotheobodyoofoMayaoRamowasopartlyoby chemicaloburnsoandopartlyowithoheavyoblow. InjuryoNo.2oonotheobodyoofoShivoNathowasobyochemical burnsoandoremainingoinjuriesowereobluntoinonatureoandowere causedobyosomeobluntoweapon. Ex.oPCoisotheoapplicationoofotheoPolice." TheostatementoofoPirthioSingho(complainant)owasorecordedoas PW2.oHeostatedothatothereowasoaoDeraonearohisofieldsoinowhichoBabaoShivoNath andohisodiscipleoMayaoRamousedotooreside.oOno07.01.2003,oheosawobothothe Babaoandohisodiscipleolyingodeadoonotwoocotsoandotheirofacesowereoburntowith acid.oHeoinformedoDevioSingh,obrotheroofotheoSarpanch.oWhenoheowasogoing tooinformotheoPolice,oSIoSandeepoSinghometohimoatotheobridgeoofotheoGanda NalaoBarsatoRoad,oPanipatoandorecordedohisostatementoEx.PD.oHeohadoseen accusedoRajivoNathoinotheoDeraomanyotimesobeforeotheooccurrence.oInocross-examination,oheostatedothatoheohadonototoldotheopoliceoaboutotheopresenceoof theoaccusedoinotheoDera.oExceptotheopersonsomentionedonoootheropersonoused tooresideoinotheosaidoDera.o TheostatementoofoRoopoChandoS/ooGianioRamowasorecordedoas PW3.oHeostatedothatoheowasoaoSarpanchoofotheoVillageoChandoli.oShivoNath BabaoalongowithohisodiscipleousedotooresideoinotheoDeraoinotheiroVillageowho wereomurderedoonotheointerveningonightoofo06/07.01.2003.oOno06.02.2003, CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-8-whileoheowasosittingoinohisofieldsoalongowithoSukhbiroSinghoato10/11.00oAM RajivoNathoaccusedocameotoothem.oTheosaidoaccusedowasoknownotoohimoasohe wasoresidingoinotheoDeraoBabaoShivoNath.oHeodisclosedothatoheohadokilledoboth BabaoShivoNathoandoMayaoRamoafteropouringoacidoonothemoasoBabaoShivoNath wantedoBabaoMayaoRamotoosucceedohimotootheoGaddioandoheo(RajivoNath)oalso wantedotoooccupyotheosameoGaddi.oWhileotheyowereoinotheoprocessoof producingotheoaccusedobeforeotheopolice,otheopoliceometothemoenrouteoonothe villageochowk.oTheopoliceointerrogatedotheoaccusedowhooreiteratedotheosame wordsobeforeotheopolice.oHisoextra-judicialoconfessionowasoreducedointo writingowhichowasoEx.PE/1oattestedobyohimoandoSukhbiroSinghoPW.oInocross-examination,oheostatedothatoknewotheoaccusedoforoabouto05omonthsopriorotoothe occurrenceoasowhenoheousedotoovisitoDeraoBabaoShivoNath,oMayaoRamoandothe accusedousedotooresideoinotheosame.o SandeepoSinghotheothenoSHO,oP.S.oSadaroPanipatowasoexamined asoPW9.oHeostatedothatocomplainanto(PirthioSingh)ometohimoono07.01.2003 leadingotootheoregistrationoofotheoFIR.oHeothereafter,oconductedovariousofacets ofotheoinvestigation.oHeotookointoopossessionohalfoaobottleoofoliquoroandoone emptyosteeloglassofromotheospot.oOno06.02.2003,oRoopoChand,oSarpanchoof VillageoChandolioandoSukbiroSinghoofoChandolioproducedotheoaccusedobefore himoandostatedothatotheoaccusedohadomadeoanoextra-judicialoconfessionobefore themoadmittingohisoguilt.oHeoalsoorecordedotheocontentsoofotheoextra-judicial confessionomadeobeforeoRoopoChandoandoSukhbiroSinghovideoEx.PEowhich wasosignedobyobothotheseowitnesses.oInocross-examination,oheostatedothatohe hadorecordedotheocontentsoofotheoextra-judicialoconfessionoasonarratedobyoboth CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-9-theowitnessesoandodidonotoputoanyoquestionotootheoaccusedoandonorowasothe extra-judicialoconfessionorecordedoinoquestionoansweroform.o

7.o Onotheobasisoofotheoevidenceoonorecord,otheostatementoofothe accusedowasorecordedoU/so313oCr.P.C.owhereinoheodeniedotheoprosecution versionoandopleadedoinnocenceoandohisofalseoimplication.oHeotookothe followingoplea:- "IoamoinnocentoandoIohaveobeenofalselyoimplicatedoinothisocase.oI generallyoresideoatoBindraoVano(UP.)oinoNandoGauoShala.oIohave nooconcernowithotheosaidoincidentonoroIomadeoanyoextraojudicial confessionobeforeoanyopersonsonorotheyoproducedobeforeothe police.oIoevenodoonotoknowotheosaidoPws."

¶8Basedoonotheoevidenceoled,otheoaccused/appellantocameotoobe convictedoandosentencedobyotheoCourtoofoAddl.oSessionsoJudge,oPanipatovide judgmentoandoorderoofosentenceodatedo03/06.04.2004oasounder:- Offence SentenceoRI/SI Fine RI/SI o in o default o of underoSection paymentoofofine 302oIPC Lifeoimprisonment Rs.1000/- RIoforo01omonth

¶9Itoisotheoaforementionedojudgment,owhichoisounderochallenge,oin theopresentoappeal.

¶10TheolearnedoAmicusoCuriaeoforotheoaccused/appellantocontends thatotheoextra-judicialoconfessionopurportedlyomadeobyotheoaccusedoinothe presenceoofoPW3-RoopoChandoandoSukhbiroSinghoPWocannotobeobelieved.oIt doesonotostandotooreasonothatotheooffenceohadobeenocommittedoinosecrecyoand theoaccusedowouldoblurtooutoeverythingotootheseowitnesses.oBeothatoasoitomay, otherothanotheoextra-judicialoconfession,othereowasoabsolutelyonooevidence inculpatingotheoaccusedoinotheooffence.oNeitherowasothereoanyoevidenceoof CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-10-eitheroofotheodeceasedobeingoseenoinotheocompanyoofotheoaccusedoimmediately priorotootheooccurrenceoandonorohasoanyorecoveryobeingoeffectedofromothe accusedopursuantotoohisoarrest.oTheomotiveohasoalsooemanatedoonlyofromothe extra-judicialoconfessionoandonotofromotheostatementoofoanyootherowitness. Therefore,otheochainoofocircumstantialoevidenceoisonotocompleteosooasotooleave noodoubtowhatsoeverothatoitoisotheoaccusedowhoohasocommittedotheooffence.oHe thus,ocontendsothatotheopresentoappealobeoallowedoandotheoaccused/appellantobe acquittedoofotheochargesoframedoagainstohim.

¶11Onotheootherohand,otheolearnedoStateocounselocontendsothatothe accusedowasoresidingoinotheosameoDeraoasobothotheodeceased.oHeocommitted theooffenceoasoheosuspectedothatoBabaoShivoNathowouldohandooverotheoGaddi toohisodiscipleoMayaoRamoandonototoohimo(accusedoRajivoNath).oHeohadomade anoextra-judicialoconfessionobeforeoPW3-RoopoChand,otheoSarpanchoofothe Villageowhichocannotobeodisbelieved.oTherefore,othereowasosufficientoevidence inculpatingotheoaccused.oHe,othusocontendsothatotheopresentoappealowasoliable toobeodismissed.

¶12Weohaveoheardotheolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandogone throughotheorecord.

¶13Theopresentocaseoisobasedoonocircumstantialoevidenceoandothe Hon'bleoSupremeoCourtoinotheocaseoofoSharadoBiridhichandoSardaoVs.oState ofoMaharashtra,o1984oAIRoSupremeoCourto1622oheldoasounder:-"152.oAocloseoanalysisoofothisodecisionowouldoshowothatotheofollowing conditionsomustobeofulfilledobeforeoaocaseoagainstoanoaccusedocanobeosaid toobeofullyoestablished:-CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-11-

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court inoShivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793owhere the following observations were made :* "certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions."

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

¶153These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. " :emphasisosupplied; 0(.o -notheorecento#ud"mentoof o!ara""attuoMuhammedoBasheer #ersuso$heoStateoofo!era%ao & 4'1&(oSCCo81),otheoHonD!leoSupremeoCourtoin theoconte7toofocircumstantialoevidenceohasoheldoasounder:? "11. Thereafter, the above principles have been reiterated in the subsequent judgments of this Court and hold the field till CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-12-Thus, these basic established principles can be summarized in the following terms that the chain of events needs to be so established that the court has no option but to come to one and only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused person. If an iota of doubt creeps in at any stage in the sequence of events, the benefit thereof should flow to the accused. Mere suspicion alone, irrespective of the fact that it is very strong, cannot be a substitute for a proof. The chain of circumstances must be so complete that they lead to only one conclusion that is the guilt of the accused. Even in the case of a conviction where in an appeal the chain of evidence is found to be not complete or the courts could reach to any another hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused, the accused person must be given the benefit of doubt which obviously would lead to his acquittal. Meaning thereby, when there is a missing link, a finding of guilt cannot be recorded. In other words, the onus on the prosecution is to produce such evidence which conclusively establishes the truth and the only truth with regard to guilt of an accused for the charges framed against him or her, and such evidence should establish a chain of events so complete as to not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused. (Emphasisosupplied) 0*. Comin"o!ac1otootheofactsoofotheopresentocase,oasoperothe prosecutionotheoaccusedomadeoanoe7tra?#udicialoconfessiono!eforeoPA%?Roop Chandostatin"othatoheohadocommittedotheomurderoofo!othotheodeceased.o he occurrenceotoo1oplaceoonotheoni"htointervenin"o$'&$/.$0.)$$%.o heo,-Ro.as re"isteredoono$/.$0.)$$%.o heoaccusedopurportedlyomadeoanoe7tra?#udicial confessionoonlyoono$'.$).)$$%.o hereoisoa!solutelyonoo#ustifia!leoreasonofor theoaccusedotoohaveomadeothatoconfessionoandothatotoooafteroaomonthoofothe CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-13-occurrence.oAfterotheore"istrationoofotheo,-Ro.hichoisoa"ainstoun1no.n persons,othereo.asonooreasonoforotheo-nvesti"atin"oA"encyotoosuspectothe presentoaccusedoandotherefore,otheorecitaloinotheoe7tra?#udicialoconfessionothat heo.asoma1in"oaoconfessionoasotheopoliceo.asosearchin"oforohimocannoto!e accepted.o6venoother.ise,o.hereoanooffenceoisocommittedoinosecrecy,oitois hi"hlyounli1elyothatoanoaccusedo.ouldoconfessotoohaveocommittedotheooffence muchoafterotheooffenceo.ithoutoanyo#ustifia!leoreason.o4eothatoasoitomay,oan e7tra?#udicialoconfessiono!yoitsoveryonatureoisoanoinherentlyo.ea1opieceoof evidenceo.hichocannoto!eoacceptedo.ithoutosufficientocorro!orativeoevidence .hichoasoshallo!eodiscussedoherein!elo.oisounavaila!le. 0'. Aithorespectotooanoe7tra?#udicialoconfessionoinotheocaseoofoState ofo*un+a,oVersusoBha+anoSin-ho.oothers,o'19/0(o4oSCCo4/ ,otheoHonD!le SupremeoCourtoheldoasounder:? "15. Coming to the evidence of extra judicial confessions, we find the same to be improbable and lacking in credence. According to GurmejoSinghoand JabarjangoSinghoPWs, the confessing accused came to them and blurted out confessions. They also requested those two witnesses to produce them before the police. The resume of facts given above would go to show that according to the prosecution case, the murders of the three deceased persons were committed in a most heinous manner and under a veil of secrecy. Persons who commit such murders after taking precautions of secrecy are not normally likely to become garrulous after the commission of the offence and acquire a sudden proneness to blurt out what they were at pains to conceal. In any case it seems rather odd that all the three accused who had not been arrested till the morning of May 9, 1972 should be seized almost at the same time by a mood to make confession. It is significant that SurjitoSingho, Charan Kaur and Jito CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-14-accused had no particular relationship or connection with GurmejoSinghoand JabarjangoSinghoPWs. These two witnesses were also not in such a position that the above mentioned three accused would be willing to repose their confidence in them. If SurjitoSingho, Charan Kaur and Jito wanted to surrender themselves before the police, we fail to understand as to why they should not themselves surrender before the police and go instead to GurmejoSinghoand JabarjangoSinghoand blurt out confessions before them. The evidence of extra judicial confession in the very nature of things is a weak piece of evidence. The evidence adduced in this respect in the present case lacks plausibility and, as observed by the HighoCourto, it does not inspire confidence." (Emphasisosupplied) -n o!a%in-a o 1 o !usha% o Vs. o State o of o !arnata"a o B2 o *o%ice Inspectoro3u,%i,o & 4oI4SCo1 4,otheoHonD!leoSupremeoCourtoheldoasounder:? "14. The conviction of the appellant is largely based on the extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before PW*1. So far as an extra judicial confession is concerned, it is considered as a weak type of evidence and is generally used as a corroborative link to lend credibility to the other evidence on record. In Chandrapal v. State of Chattisgarh6, this Court reiterated the evidentiary value of an extra judicial confession in the following words: "11. At this juncture, it may be noted that as per Section 30 of the Evidence Act, when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. However, this court has consistently held that an extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-15-ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra judicial confession. As held in case of State of M.P. Through CBI v. Paltan Mallah, the extra judicial confession made by the co*accused could be admitted in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence against the accused, the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the co*accused loses its significance and there cannot be any conviction based on such extra judicial confession of the co*accused."

¶15It is no more res integra that an extra judicial confession must be accepted with great care and caution. If it is not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of acceptability of an extra judicial confession depends on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the circumstances in which it was given. The prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused, that it was voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession were true. The standard required for proving an extra judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution necessarily rests on the extra judicial confession." :emphasisosupplied;oo 0/. Anoattemptohaso!eenomadeo!yotheoprosecutionotoosho.othatothe accusedo.asoalsooresidin"oinotheo5eraoalon"o.itho!othotheodeceased.oPA)? PirthioSin"hostatedothatoheohadoseenoRa#ivo3athoaccusedoinotheo5eraomany timesopriorotootheooccurrence.oSimilarly,oPA%?RoopoChandostatedothatohe 1ne.otheoaccusedo.hoousedotooliveoinotheo5eraoofo4a!aoShivo3ath.o a1in" CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-16-theseostatementsotoobeobelievable,oatobest,oitocouldobeosaidothatotheoaccusedowas residingoinotheosameoDeraoasobothotheodeceased.oHowever,obyonoostretchoof imaginationocanoitobeosaidothatotheoaccusedowaso'lastoseen'oinotheocompanyoof eitheroofotheodeceasedoimmediatelyopriorotootheooccurrence.oInofact,othereoisono evidenceoonorecordotooshowothatoRajivoNathowasoinotheocompanyoofobothothe deceasedoonotheonightointerveningo06/07.01.2003.oTherefore,othereoisono evidenceoofotheoaccusedohavingobeeno"lastoseen"oinotheocompanyoofothe deceased.

¶18Asoregardsomotive,ootherothanotheoextra-judicialoconfessionowhere theomotiveohasobeenonarratedothereoisonoootheroindependentoevidenceoofothe same.oInoaocaseoofocircumstantialoevidence,omotiveoforocommissionoofothe offenceoassumesovitaloimportance.oTheosameoisolackingoinotheopresentocase.

¶19Further,opursuantotootheoarrestoofotheoaccused,onoorecovery whatsoeverohasobeenoeffectedofromohimoeitheroofotheoacidooroofoanyoother weaponopurportedlyousedoinotheooccurrence.oInofact,oaoglassobottleoandosteel tumblerorecoveredofromotheospotowereosubjectedotoofingerprintoanalysisobutothe chanceoprintsowereonotofoundotoobeodecipherable.

¶20Theoaforementionedodiscussionoestablishesothatotheoprosecution hasonotobeenoableotooproveoitsocaseobeyondoreasonableodoubtoandotheochainoof circumstantialoevidenceoisonotosoocompleteosooasotooleadotooonlyoone irresistibleoconclusionothatoitoisotheoaccusedoaloneowhoohasocommittedothe offence.

¶21Therefore, o the o instant o appeal o is o accepted. o The o impugned judgmentodatedo03/06.04.2005opassedobyotheoAddl.oSessionsoJudge,oPanipatois CRA-D-376-DB-2004oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo-17-setoasideoandotheoaccused/appellantoisoacquittedoofotheochargesoframedoagainst him. (JASJIToSINGHoBEDI) ooooooooo(GURVINDERoSINGHoGILL) JUDGE oJUDGE

08.04.2025 JITESHo Whetherospeaking/reasoned:-ooYes/No Whetheroreportable:- oooooooooYes/No