CHANDRAPAL versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (EARLIER M.P.)

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 366 · Decided: 27-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 366
366
CHANDRAPAL
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (EARLIER M.P.)
(Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2015)
MAY 27, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302 and 201/34 – Murder – Prosecution
case that a girl and a boy having a love affair went missing and ten
days later their dead bodies found hanging on the tree in
decomposed state – Allegations of murder against the appellant-
accused and other co-accused – Conviction u/ss. 302/34 and 201/
34 and sentenced accordingly – In appeal, the High Court upheld
the order of conviction and sentence as regards the appellant,
however, set aside the conviction of co-accused u/s. 302/34, but
upheld for the offence u/s. 201/34 – On appeal, held: If the evidence
of prosecution falls short of proof of homicidal death of the
deceased, and if the possibility of suicidal death could not be ruled
out, the appellant could not have been convicted merely on the basis
of the theory of “last seen together” –Having regard to the totality
of evidence on record, the High Court erred in convicting the
appellant for the alleged charge u/s. 302/34, relying upon a very
weak kind of evidence of extra judicial confession allegedly made
by the co-accused, and relying upon the theory of “last seen
together” propounded by the prosecution witness – Also, no evidence
as to how and by whom the deceased girl was allegedly murdered,
was produced by the prosecution – Thus, the prosecution failed to
prove the charges levelled against the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt – Suspicion howsoever, strong cannot take place of proof –
Appellant acquitted from the charges levelled against him – Evidence
–Extra judicial confession – Last seen theory.
Evidence: Extra-judicial confession – Evidentiary value –
Held: Extra-judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence – Unless
it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence
of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for offence of murder
should not be made only on the basis of extra-judicial confession –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
367
Extra-judicial confession made by the co-accused can be admitted
in evidence only as a corroborative piece of evidence.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It may be stated that undisputedly the entire
case of the prosecution rested on the circumstantial evidence,
as there was no eye witness to the alleged incident. In order to
convict an accused under Section 302 IPC, the court is required
to first see as to whether the prosecution has proved the factum
of homicidal death. The evidence of PW-13 doctor, who had
carried out the post-mortem of the two deceased, would be most
relevant in this regard. He had stated in his deposition before
the court, inter alia, that on 12.12.1994, he had carried out the
post-mortem of the two deceased. The dead bodies of both the
deceased were in decomposed state; that the knot mark present
on the neck of the deceased B was ante-mortem; that the cause
of death appeared to be Asphyxia due to hanging; and that the
death had taken place within 8 to 10 days and the nature of death
was Suicidal. The said Doctor had stated similar facts for K. He
could not express any opinion whether it was a homicidal death.
In the cross- examination by counsel for the accused, he had
categorically admitted that he did not find any symptom of
homicidal death, nor he had opined in his report given on
12.12.1994 that the deaths of the deceased were homicidal. Of
course, he had stated that on the basis of the report submitted
on 30.04.1995, an inference could be drawn that the deaths could
be homicidal deaths. [Para 7, 8][374-C; 375-E-G; 376-B-C]
1.2 The High Court in the impugned judgment did not
consider at all the evidence of doctor to come to the conclusion
whether the deaths were homicidal deaths, before confirming the
conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
Unfortunately, the Sessions Court also observed that the
statement of doctor was not important because he had expressed
an opinion which was neither beneficial to the prosecution nor to
the defence. When the case of the prosecution rested on
circumstantial evidence, it was imperative for the prosecution to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deaths of the deceased
were homicidal deaths and not suicidal, more particularly when
the line of defence of the accused was that the B and K had
CHANDRAPAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (E

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