PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIA versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 875 · Decided: 14-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
875
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 875
875
PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIA
v.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No. 2230 of 2010)
MARCH 14, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Criminal Law – Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession –
Conviction based on, when not justified – Appellant was convicted
for offences punishable u/s.302 r/w 34 and s.201, IPC based on
extra-judicial confession – Held: Case of the prosecution was that
the appellant had confessed to PW-1 to PW-9 – However, PW1 to
PW6 including the complainant himself whose son was killed did
not support prosecution – PW7 to PW9, the only material prosecution
witnesses were not consistent about the place at which the alleged
confession was made – Even after the alleged extra-judicial
confession of committing murder was made by the appellant before
them, they did not report to the police – As per the prosecution they
accompanied the appellant to the field where dead bodies were found
buried, without informing the police – This conduct is unusual and
unnatural – There is nothing on record to show that the relationship
between the appellant and these three witnesses was such that the
appellant had implicit faith in these three witnesses and, therefore,
he confided with them – Prosecution's case about extra-judicial
confession does not inspire confidence at all – Moreover, there are
no other circumstances brought on record which could support or
corroborate the prosecution case – Evidence in form of the extra-
judicial confession of the appellant is discarded – Conviction of
the appellant not sustainable – Impugned judgments set aside –
Appellant acquitted – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 & 201.
Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary value of
– Held: Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence –
However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial
confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary
and truthful – It should be free of any inducement – Evidentiary
value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is
made – Generally, a person would confide about a crime committed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
876
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith –
Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the
confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made –
As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required – However, if an
extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on
record, it acquires more credibility.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2230 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2007 of the High Court
of Patna in CRLA No. 237 of 2002.
Gaurav Agrawal, Saurav Sunil, Advs. for the Appellant.
Abhinav Mukerji, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Mrs. Bihu Sharma,
Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Advs. for the Repondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The appellant who is accused no.1 was prosecuted along with
four others for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 as well as Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
‘IPC’). The appellant has been convicted for both offences. For the
offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, he has been
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the
conviction of the appellant, whereas the remaining four accused were
acquitted.
2. First informant is one Lakhi Prasad Chourasia (PW-5). First
Information Report (FIR) was registered on 20th June 1989. The
statement of the first informant on the basis of which the FIR was
registered notes that it has been recorded in the presence of Radhey
Prasad Mandal (PW-1); Kisan Lal Mandal (PW-4); Satya Narain Mandal
(PW-6); and Mohammad Tamijuddin (PW-7). It is alleged that on 10th
June 1989, PW-5 had lodged a missing report. The missing report was in
respect of his son Kamlesh and nephew Bulla, son of one Hira Chaurasia
(PW-9). They were missing from 02nd June 1989. PW-5 stated that at
about 02:00 p.m. on 20th June 1989, he received a secret information
that both the boys had been murdered by the present appellant in
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
877
association with others. Therefore, he along with the persons mentioned
above went to the house of the appellant and made inquiries. Though
initially, the appellant denied, after some persuasion, he admitted in
presence of the aforesaid persons that he and four others (co-accused)
had killed both the boys

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