PODYAMI SUKADA versus STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATISGARH)

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 964 · Decided: 23-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 964 
PODYAMI SUKADA 
V. 
STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATISGARH) 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2006) 
JULY 23, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Homicidal death of mother 
C by son - Extra-judicial confession made by son in presence 
of witnesses and recovery of weapon at his instance -
Conviction and sentence uls. 302 by courts below -
On 
appeal, held: Witnesses to the extra judicial confession 
declared hostile by prosecution, thus does not inspire 
D confidence - It cannot be held with certainty that any extra 
judicial confession in fact was made by son-accused -
Conviction cannot be sustained merely on the ground of 
recovery of weapon of crime at the instance of accused -
Thus, accused granted the benefit of doubt - Order of 
E conviction and sentence set aside. 
According to the prosecution case, the appellant 
caused death of his mother with a burnt stick. Thereafter, 
he made extra-judicial confession in the Panchayat in the 
presence of witnesses-PWs. 1 to 4 and the weapon of 
F crime was recovered at his instance. However, the 
prosecution declared the said witnesses hostile. The 
courts below convicted the appellant u/s. 302 IPC and 
imposed punishment of life imprisonment. Hence the 
G 
H 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The evidentiary value of extra judicial 
confession depends upon trustworthiness of the witness 
964 
PODYAMI SUKADA v. STATE OF M.P. (NOW 
965 
CHHATISGARH) 
before whom confession is made. Law does not A 
contemplate that the evidence of an extra judicial 
confession should in all cases be corroborated. It is not 
an inflexible rule that in no case conviction can be based 
solely on extrajudicial confession. It is basically in the 
realm of appreciation of evidence and a question of fact 
B 
to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each 
case. [Para 10] [969-G-H; 970-A] 
1.2 In the instant case, all the witnesses to the extra 
judicial confession have been declared hostile by the 
prosecution. It is true that the evidence of the hostile C 
witness is not altogether wiped out and remains 
admissible in evidence and there is no legal bar to base 
conviction on the basis of the testimony of hostile 
witness but as a rule of prudence, the court requires 
corroboration by other reliable evidence. The PW 1, PW 
D 
2, PW 3 and PW 4 in their evidence had stated that the 
meeting was called in the village after the death of the 
deceased, but PW 2 and PW 4 have nowhere stated that 
extrajudicial confession was made by the appellant 
admitting that he had killed the deceased. PW 1 and PW 
E 
3 too have not stated anything about extrajudicial 
confession in their examination in chief but after being 
declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution 
they disclosed that the appellant had confessed that he 
killed the deceased with the burnt stick as she told him 
F 
that he was wandering after consuming liquor. However, 
when cross-examined by the defence, again they 
admitted that no such confession was made by the 
appellant. Thus, there is complete sommersault in their 
evidence. The evidence of both the prosecution G 
witnesses is slippery and from their evidence, it is 
difficult to hold with certainty that any extra judicial 
confession in fact was made by the appellant. This state 
of evidence leaves this Court in doubt and the witnesses 
of the extrajudicial confession do not inspire confidence 
H 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
and merely on the ground of recovery of weapon of crime 
at the instance of the appellant, it would be unsafe to 
sustain the conviction of the appellant. The appellant is 
granted the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment of 
conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside. 
s [Paras 9, 11 and 12] [969-C-F; 970-D-E; 970-F] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1243 of 2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.06.2005 of High 
c Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 936 
of 2000. 
D.N. Goburdhan and P. Bagchi for the Appellant. 
Atul Jha and Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the 
D Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C.K. PRASAD, J. 1. This appeal, by grant of leave arises 
from the judgment and order dated 22nd June, 2005 passed 
E 
by the Chhatisgarh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.936 of 
2000, whereby it had upheld the conviction of the appellant 
under Section 302 of the Indian Pena

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