DEVI LAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 168 · Decided: 08-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
DEVI LAL
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
(Criminal Appeal No. 148 of  2010)
JANUARY 08, 2019
[RANJAN GOGOI, CJI, K.M. JOSEPH AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 and s.120B – Murder alleged against four accused –
Prosecution – Circumstantial evidence – Trial court convicted the
two appellants-accused relying on evidence of three witnesses and
on extra-judicial confession made by one of the appellant-accused
– Other two accused were acquitted – High Court confirmed the
order of trial court – On appeal, held: Extra-judicial confession is
not proved – The chain of circumstances is also not complete and
coherent to permit conviction of appellants-accused on the basis
thereof without any trace of doubt – Appellants-accused are entitled
to benefit of doubt and hence entitled to be acquitted.
Evidence:
Circumstantial evidence – Evidentiary value – Held: While
scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, a court has to evaluate it
to ensure that the chain of events is established clearly and
completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of
the accused.
Extra-judicial confession
Evidentiary value – Held: Extra-judicial confession though
is used against its maker, but on the face of it, is a weak evidence –
It is advisable for the court to look for a corroboration with the
other evidence on record.
Jurisprudence:
Criminal jurisprudence – In the case of circumstantial
evidence, if two views are possible (one pointing to the guilt and
other to the innocence of the accused) the accused is entitled to
have the benefit of one which is favourable to him.
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 168
168
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The case of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence.  The circumstances which lead the trial
Judge to hold the appellants guilty under Section 302 and 120B
IPC and confirmed by the High Court is primarily based on the
evidence of complainant (PW-2), daughter of deceased (PW-5)
and wife of deceased (PW-10) and also relied upon the extra judicial
confession made by the co-accused ‘B’ to PW-3. [Para 6][173-A-
B]
2. Neither in the initial complaint on which the missing
report was lodged nor at the stage after inquiry, when the FIR
came to be registered (Exh. P-73), the name of appellant-accused
‘D’ surfaced. Even in the statement of PW-5, while recording
statement under Section 164 CrPC, (Exh. D-5), no such reference
was made of any conspiracy having been hatched by accused ‘D’.
In the testimony of PW-5 and PW-10, it was deposed that accused
‘D’ came to the house on 5th February 1999 and wanted to purchase
the half portion of Bada from the deceased for a sum of Rs. 10,000/
-. ‘D’ threatened the deceased to sell his Bada which he refused.
[Para 7][173-B-D]
3. As regards appellant-accused ‘B’, it was deposed by PW-
5 and PW-10 that he was known to their family as accused ‘B’
used to take money from the deceased and used to return the
same.  Deceased lended Rs. 50,000/- to accused ‘B’, which had
been reduced into writing in the ledger book.  When the deceased
went to take money from ‘B’, he refused to return the same and
started quarrelling.  The deceased had informed this to PW-5
and PW-10.  The money as demanded by the deceased led to
suspicion of the commission of crime.  But both the witnesses
i.e. PW- 5 and PW-10, in their cross-examination, stated that they
did not know when accused ‘B’ had borrowed money from the
deceased. [Para 8][173-D-F]
4. It is true that an extra judicial confession is used against
its maker but as a matter of caution, advisable for the Court to
look for a corroboration with the other evidence on record.  Extra
judicial confession is, on the face of it, a weak evidence and the
Court is reluctant, in the absence of a chain of cogent
DEVI LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
circumstances, to rely on it, for the purpose of recording a
conviction. In the instant case, there are no additional cogent
circumstances on record to rely on it.  At the same time PW-3,
while recording his statement under Section 164 CrPC, has not
made such statement of extra judicial confession(Exh. D-5) made
by accused ‘B’.  In addition, there are no other circumstances on
record to support it. [Para 9][173-G-H; 174-A-B]
Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar (2008) 17 SCC 128 – relied
on.
5.1 While scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, a Court
has to evaluate it to ensure that the c

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