PRADEEP KUMAR versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 682 · Decided: 16-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
682
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 682
682
PRADEEP KUMAR
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018)
MARCH 16, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Penal Code,1860 – ss. 302,34,201 – Two accused persons
(including appellant) were convicted for offence of murder by trial
Court –The prosecution case, rested upon three circumstances (a)
the alleged confessional statement of appellant;(b) prior animosity
between appellant and the deceased; and (c) the recovery of material
from the appellant – The High Court upheld the conviction of
appellant and acquitted co-accused – On appeal, held: The
testimonies of PW-12(son of the deceased) and PW-13(co-villager)
negated circumstances that there was tension between the deceased
and the accused, which was, the motive of commission of crime –
Recovery of materials i.e keys and the money, there is no independent
corroborated material except for the confessional statement of the
accused, which also is not proven on record – Further, the extra
judicial confessional statement of the appellant, apart from being
hit by s.27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it not to have been supported
by PW-1 and PW-7, who as is evident, was himself a suspect, if
witness was himself a suspect, his testimony cannot be said to be
reliable and trustworthy – The testimony of star witness PW-19-
investigating officer was found to be unworthy of any credence
and hence unreliable – The testimonies of the other prosecution
witnesses were found unreliable – Neither the chain of circumstances
to have been completely established nor the guilt of the accused
alone, having committed the crime to be proven, much less beyond
reasonable doubt – The presumption of the guilt of appellant by
both the courts below is based on improper and incomplete
appreciation of evidence which has resulted into travesty of justice
– Judgment of High Court and trial Court set aside – Appellant
acquitted –Evidence Act,1872 – s.27.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
683
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The impugned judgement to say the least, is
sketchy. The presumption of the guilt of appellant-accused by
both the courts below is based on improper and incomplete
appreciation of evidence which in the considered view of this
Court, has resulted into travesty of justice. [Para 10][688-F-G]
2. When this court came to the deposition of PW-12 son of
the deceased, unequivocally he states that “... later on the police
personnel told me that accused persons have thrown my father
after committing murder...” Now this totally belies the testimony
of his grandfather (PW-10). To similar effect, it is the testimony
of PW-13 who only adds that “...Later on I came to know that
victim has been murdered. I heard from the villagers...”.
Significantly, her statement that she was not informed by her
husband (PW-7), of the deceased being murdered by the Appellant
was not recorded in her previous statement with which she was
confronted. But what is crucial is her deposition is that her
husband himself was a suspect and that she admits it to be correct,
“... that the police personnel took my husband for inquiry in
connection with the murder of deceased. The police personnel
kept my husband for one day...” This negates one of the
circumstances that there was tension between the deceased and
the accused, which was, the motive of commission of crime, i.e.
issue of use of the shop inter se the parties. [Para 19][690-G-H;
691-A-C]
3. This Court noticed in respect of the next circumstance,
which is the recovery of keys and the money, that there is no
independent corroborated material except for the confessional
statement of the accused, which also is not proven on record.
Even otherwise, the keys, the currency notes and the blood
stained clothes were not sent for chemical analysis. There is only
an unexhibited copy of the FSL Report of the alleged blood
stained clothes of the Appellant which stands not proven by
anyone. Also none has come forward to depose that the accused
had kept the keys of the shop with himself, for after all, it is not
the case of the prosecution that the shop belonged to the accused.
[Para 20][691-C-E]
PRADEEP KUMAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
684
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
4. The substratum of the evidence, that is the extra judicial
confessional statement of the Appellant, apart from being hit by
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, this Court finds it
not to have been suppo

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