PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 876 · Decided: 11-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 876 
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITTAL 
v. 
STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH & ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No.2194 of 2011 etc.) 
MARCH 11, 2015. 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860- ss. 3021149, 404, 148, 201, 212, 
411 - Murder - Sales officer of Indian Oil Corporation on 
inspection of petrol pump of accused no. 1 found 
irregularities in the dispensation of fuel - Sales and supplies 
D to the petrol pump suspended, which were later restored 
on payment of fine - Month later, sales officer being 
suspicious again inspected the petrol pump of the accused 
- However, the next day sales officer found dead - Car of 
E A-7 and A-4 intercepted by police constable while they were 
transporling the dead'body of sales officer to dispose it of 
- Confessional statement made by A-7 and A-4 to the 
constable about commission of crime and involvement of 
other accused - On basis thereof, arrest of the accused and 
F recoveries made at their instance -
Conviction and 
sentence of all the accused under the various provisions 
of Penal Code - However, the High Courl modified death 
sentence of accused no. 1 to life imprisonment while 
upholding the order of conviction and sentence of A-2, A-
G 4, A-5, A-7, A-8 and acquitting A-3 and A-6 - Interference 
with - Held: Not called for - Motive behind the brutal murder 
of the deceased trustworlhy- Nexus between the accused 
H 
876 
PAWAN KUMAR @ MONU MITIAL v. STATE OF 877 
UTIAR PRADESH 
to do away with the deceased as well as their participation A 
in the crime established beyond reasonable doubt - Place 
of incident was proved - Evidence on record trustworthy 
and consistent, pointing to the guilt of the accused - Minor 
discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses would not 
come in the way of the other strong circumstantial evidence, 
B 
cumulatively taken together, forming a complete chain of 
events - Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution 
clearly proved the chain of events connecting the accused 
to the guilt of the commission of the offence - Arms Act - c 
s. 25, 30. 
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 25, 27 - Confession made 
by accused before the police - Admissibility of - Held: 
Statements made by an accused before police official which 
amount to confession is barred uls. 25 - However, in view D 
of s. 27 whatever information given by the accused in 
consequence of which a fact is discovered only would be 
admissible in the evidence, whether such information 
amounts to confession or not - On facts, confession given 
.by the accused is not the basis for the courts below to E 
convict the accused, but it is only a source of information 
to put the criminal law into motion - Thus, the accused 
cannot take shelter u/s. 25. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1 The statements made by an accused 
before police official which amount to confession is 
barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. This 
prohibition is, however, lifted to some extent by Section G 
27 of the Act whereby, whatever information given by 
the accused in consequence of which a fact is 
discovered only would be admissible in the evidence, 
whether such information amounts to confession or 
not. The basic idea embedded under Section 27 of the H 
878 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by 
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the 
principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made 
on the strength of any information obtained from a 
prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee .that the 
B information supplied by the prisoner is true. The 
information might be confessional or non~inculpatory 
in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it 
becomes a reliable information. The "fact discovered" 
as envisaged under Section 27 of the Evidence Act 
C embraces the place from which the object was 
produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but 
the information given must relate distinctly to that 
effect. [Paras 25, 26, 27] [898-F-G; 899-B-F] 
D 
1.2 In the instant case, accused Nos. 4 and 7 
disclosed the names of their co-accused at whose 
instance various incriminating materials including 
pistols, cartridges, bullets, blood stained articles were 
recovered. Simply denying their role without proper 
E explanation as to the knowledge about those 
incriminating material would justify the presumption 
drawn by the courts below to the involvement of the 
accused in the crime. The confessi

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