PARAM HANS YADAV & SADANAND TRIPATHI versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 25-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-r 
-
' 
!" i 
: .. ,,-t 
PARAM HANS YADAV & SADANAND TRIPATHI 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. 
FEBRUARY 25, 1987 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872: ss.24 & 30-Confession of a co-
accused-Not Substantive evidence against other co-accused in the 
trial-Can be used only for lending assurance to other substantive 
evidence-Extra-judicial confession made following assault-Neither 
vol~ntary nor natural. 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: s.302 read with s.120-B-Death sen-
tence-Direct evidence--Accused caught red-handed-Confessed to his 
crime-Conviction and sentence upheld-Crime whether committed at 
the behest of co-accused-Where prosecution relies upon circumstantial 
evidence a clear link to be established and the chain completed to prove 
conspiracy. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The appellants were alleged to have conspired to kill the Col-
lector-cum-District Magistrate. The latter died in a bomb attack by the 
first accused appellant. He was caught red-banded and when given a 
beating by eye-wituesses be readily confessed to his guilt, but gave out 
E 
that he had committed the ghastly murder at the behest of the second 
appellant, who was at that material time detained in jail. He made a 
similar confession before the Magistrate. They were both convicted 
under s.302 read with s.120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 
death. Their sentence was conflrDled by the High Court. 
F 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court, 
HELD:l. There was direct evidence of first appellant's involve-
ment in the crime and be had also confessed to his guilt. There was, 
therefore, no justification to take a view different from what has been 
said about him by the High Court. His conviction as also sentence shall G 
stand. [408F·G] 
2.1 The prosecution bas failed to establish by circumstantial evi-
dence the complicity of the second appellant in the conspiracy to kill the 
Collector through the first accused. He was, therefore, entitled to the 
benefit of doubt and his conviction was not sustainable. [413D] 
H 
405 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
2.2 Where the prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence to 
support the charge of conspiracy, a clear link has to be established and 
T 
B 
the chain has to be complete, otherwise it wonld indeed be hazardous to 
accept a part of the link as the complete one. On the basis of such 
incomplete circumstantial evidence, the allegation of conspiracy cannot 
be accepted. [413C] 
3.1 The confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence 
against other co-accused persons in the same trial but could only be 
used for lending reassurance if there be any other substantive evidence 
to be utilised or acted upon. [411C) 
·~ """' 
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952) SCR 526 and 
C 
Hari Chand Kurmi & Anr. v. State of Bihar, [1964) 6 SCR 623, refer-
~~ 
~ 
3.2 The judicial confession of the main accused in the instant 
case was exculpatory in natnre and, therefore, would not be admissible 
D 
against the co-accused. It has, to be kept out of consideration. [410A·B) 
3.3 The extra-jndicial confession of the main accused relates to 
the point of time contemporaneous to the incident. There was evidence 
that he was beaten np badly after being apprehended hy the moh soon 
after the bomb burst. Several prosecution witnesses have spoken about 
E 
his confession before them. There was clear material that he was man-
handled. [410B·C) 
3.4 In his statement recorded under s.164 of the Code on 
13.4.1983, the main accused denied to have made any statement follow-
ing his apprehension. Even accepting the prosecution story that he 
F 
made this statement, he appears to have made the statement following 
assault on him. Even if it is accepted that he has made the statements as 
alleged, the same cannot be utilised against the co-accused. Obviously 
when the accused was beaten up, he must have been anxious to ensure 
that the assault stopped. His plea in such a situation would neither be 
voluntary nor natural. It would not be proper to rely upon the same for 
G 
any purpose. [410H; 411A-B] 
4. The 2nd appellant might have had grudge against the Collector 
for his detention as also for the demolition of his Ashram. That must 
have been the common reaction of all the ashramites, including the 
co-accused. This could not, therefore, be a feature to supply motive for 
H 
establishingconspiracy. [412C-D) 
i 
P.H. YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR [MISRA, J.] 
407 
5.1 Several witnesses w

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