CHANDRA BONIA versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 30-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 15 
CHANDRA SONIA 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2006) 
MARCH 30, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
" 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Penal Code, 1860- s. 302 - Double murder- Conviction 
and sentence by the courts below - On basis of the extra-
C 
judicial confession made by accused before prosecution 
witness and recovery of the murder weapon at the instance 
of the accused before Investigating Officer- On appeal, held: 
Extra-judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and 
ordinarily a conviction solely on the basis of such evidence o 
cannot be maintained - However, in the instant case, the 
extra-judicial confession was made by accused to the 
prosecution witness in a different background inasmuch as 
the
0 accused suspected that he had been identified by the 
witness and he returned to warn her not to divulge any E 
information to anyone - Statement of the prosecution witness 
recorded uls. 164 Cr. P. C is almost in identical terms - The 
very proximity of the murder and the extra-judicial confession 
made to the prosecution witness shows that the confession is 
reliable - A/so, the alleged murder weapon, had been 
F 
recovered at the instance of the accused -
Though, 
independent witnesses of the recovery did not support the 
prosecution, but no reason to doubt the evidence of the 
Investigating Officer- Thus, prosecution case proved beyond 
reasonable doubt - Evidence - Extra-judicial confession. 
G 
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 131 of 2006. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.8.2001 of the High 
15 
H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R 
A Court of Gauhati at Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 
2000. 
Praneet Ranjan (A.C.) Rranay Ranjan, Hemant Kr. Yadav, 
Rajesh Mishra for the Appellant. 
B 
Avijit Roy Corporate Law Group for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
C 
This appeal against the conviction has been filed against 
D 
the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High 
Court for a double murder committed on 7th October, 1990 for 
which the appellant was sentenced for life on two counts, both 
sentences to run concurrently. 
As per the prosecution story, Somra Munda and Agnash 
Munda, the father and brother of the first informant were 
murdered during the night of 7th October, 1990 in their house. 
The First Information Report was lodged by Chukhnu Munda 
E at Police Station Marian on the 8th October, 1990 alleging that 
during his absence from the house some persons had murdered 
his father and younger brother. During the course of the 
investigation, the police recorded the statement of various 
witnesses including PW 1 Pradip Das and PW 2 Niran Sonia 
F (who were both declared hostile), PW 5, the Medical Officer 
who had conducted the post mortem on the two dead bodies, 
PW 6 the informant and PW 7 Baloni Bawri, who was a 
neighbour of the deceased, and to whom the accused had 
made an extra judicial confession on the date of the murder 
itself and PW 12 the Investigating Officer who was also a 
G witness to the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance 
of the accused. The trial court and the High Court have both 
noticed that as the solitary eye witness had died and the other 
two material witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 had been declared 
hostile, the prosecution story rested exclusively on the 
H confession made by the accused to PW 7 and the factum of 
•
• 
CHANDRA BONIA v. STATE OF ASSAM 
17 
recovery of the dao at the instance of the accused before PW 
A 
12 the Investigating Officer. 
At the hearing before us today, Mr. Praneet Ranjan, the 
learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant has argued 
that the only evidence against the accused was the extra judicial 
B 
confession made before PW 7 and as this evidence was a 
weak kind of evidence, the conviction of the appellant could not 
be maintained. He has further submitted that police had, in fact, 
used third degree methods and tortured and threatened the 
witnesses to give false evidence and as such the case against 
C 
the appellant appeared to be a concocted one. 
Mr. Avijit Roy, the learned counsel for the State of Assam, 
however, has supported the judgments of the courts below. 
It is true that an extra judicial confession is a very weak o 
piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on the basis 
of such evidence cannot be maintained. The confession, made 
by the appellant to PW 7, however

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.