NIKHIL CHANDRA MONDAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 03-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 12 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
NIKHIL CHANDRA MONDAL
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
(Criminal Appeal No. 2269 of 2010)
MARCH 03, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Evidence – Extra-judicial Confession – Evidentiary value –
Lady found murdered by a sharp cutting weapon – During
investigation, revealed that the appellant-husband of the deceased
had confessed before the prosecution witness that he had murdered
the deceased with the murder weapon at that very spot where the
body of the deceased was found – However, the trial court found
the evidence of the witnesses contradictory to each other and not
trustworthy, and acquitted the appellant – In appeal, the High Court
convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s. 302 – Interference with
– Held: Not called for – However, strong suspicion may be, it cannot
take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt – Extra–judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence – Where an extra–judicial
confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility
becomes doubtful and it loses its importance – Trial court found the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses not to be reliable so as to base
the conviction solely on the basis of such testimonies – Trial court
disbelieved the recovery of clothes and weapon – Approach adopted
by the trial court was in accordance with law – Unless such a finding
is found to be perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible
for the appellate Court to interfere with the same – View taken by
the trial court could not be said to be either perverse or illegal/
impossible to warrant interference – Thus, High Court erred in
interfering with the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal
passed by the trial court - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
Held : 1.1. It is a settled principle of law that however
strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond
reasonable doubt. In the light of these guiding principles, we will
have to consider the present case. [Para 11][26-C-D]
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 20
20
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
21
1.2. The trial court observed that where the prosecution
case is entirely based on extra–judicial confession and the
prosecution seeks conviction of the accused on that extra–judicial
confession, the evidence of the witnesses before whom the alleged
confessional statement was made, requires a greater scrutiny to
pass the test of credibility. [Para 13][26-E]
1.3 The trial court found that the evidence of PWs 10 to 12
were contradictory to each other. The trial court had the benefit
of witnessing the demeanour of these witnesses. It found the
evidence of these witnesses not to be trustworthy. [Para 14][26-
F]
1.4 Extra–judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.
Where an extra–judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious
circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its
importance. It is a rule of caution where the court would generally
look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any
reliance upon such extra–judicial confession. There is no doubt
that conviction can be based on extra–judicial confession, but in
the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. [Para
15][26-G-H; 27-A]
1.5 The trial court found the testimonies of PWs 10 to 12
not to be reliable so as to base the conviction solely on the basis
of such testimonies. Unless such a finding was found perverse,
an interference therewith would not be warranted. [Para 16][27-
F-G]
1.6 The Division Bench of the High Court has relied on
the recovery of the blood–stained clothes and the weapon which
is alleged to have been used by the appellant in commission of
the crime. The trial court disbelieved the recovery of clothes
and weapon on two grounds. Firstly, that there was no
memorandum statement of the accused as required under Section
27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and secondly, the recovery of the
knife was from an open place accessible to one and all. The
approach adopted by the trial court was in accordance with law.
However, this circumstance which could not have been used, has
NIKHIL CHANDRA MONDAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
22
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
been employed by the High Court to seek corroboration to the
extra–judicial confession. [Paras 17, 18][27-G; 28-A-B]
1.7 The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal
is very well crystalised. Unless such a finding is found to be
perverse or illegal/impossible, it is not permissible fo

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