LexMADHU versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 2 S.C.R. 986 MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 2006) JANUARY 13, 2012 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] Pen'al Code, 1860- ss. 392 and 302 r/w s.34 - F1obbery C and murder - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Appellant-accused and a co-accused allegedly robbed a woman of the gold ornaments worn by her and murdeired her by forcibly drowning her, when she was sitting on the ghat (place leading into water) steps leading to the paddy field, o washing utensils - Conviction of appellant by Courts below on basis of recovery of gold ornaments pursuant to confessional statements made by the appellant and the co- accused before Police; and the factum of the accused having been sighted close to the place of occurrence at or around E the time of occurrence - Justification - Held: Not justified - Evidence produced by the prosecution did not, in <my way, establish the guilt of the accused - Confessional statements made by appellant and the co-accused were not proved against them, or to their detriment - This by itself removed F the most vital link in the chain of events sought to be established by the prosecution against the accused - I Evidence produced to establish the presence of the accused near the place of occurrence, at or about the time of the commission of the crime was also irrelevant, because, the G · accused were in any case neighbours of the deceast~d - Theft of the golden ornaments worn by the deceased was doubtful - Explanation tendered by the prosecution of thei earrings worn by the deceased when her body was recovered, also far from satisfactory - No positive inference from the statement H 986 MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 987 of the Doctor (who conducted post-mortem), and the A· surrounding facts that the deceased was first smothered and then drowned as alleged by the prosecution - Also there were serious contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses - Prosecution was not able to connect the accused with the alleged crime in any manner whatsoever - Appellant B liable to be acquitted. Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 25, 26 and 27 - Confessional statements before police - Relevance of - Exception postulated under s.27 - Applicability of - Robbery and C murder case - Recovery of gold ornaments by police, allegedly on basis of confessional statements made by the accused - Validity - Held: Relevance of confessional statements would depend on discovery of facts based on the information supplied by the accused - If any fresh facts have been discovered on the basis of the confessional statement D made by the accused, the same would be relevant - If not, the confessional statement cannot be. proved against the accused, to the detriment of the accused - In the instant case, the confessional statements made by the accused cannot be said to have led to the discovery of an unknown fact, because E the statements of PW7, PW11, PW13 and PW15 reveal that the factual position in respect of the/ recovery of the articles from the place from where the same were shown to have been eventually recovered, was known to the public at large well before the confessional statements had been recorded - The F said statements were inadmissible inspite of the mandate contained in s.27 of the Evidence Act for the simple reason, that they cannot be stated to have resulted in the discovery of some new fact - In the factual background of the case, the gold ornaments which eventually came to be recovered by the G police, allegedly at the instance of accused, may well have - been planted by the police. Criminal Trial - Investigation - Inquest report - Held: Genesis of crime should ordinarily emerge from inquest H 988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R. A report, specially when it is in respect of a patent fact. Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Appmciation of - Held: Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution - In a 8 case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion - In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. c Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Interference in criminal matters - Scope - Benef
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.