LexRAM LAL versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 857 RAM LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2010) OCTOBER 03, 2018 [R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.] Evidence – Extra-judicial confession – Evidentiary value of – Appellant-peon with the Bank was assigned the job of Cash Clerk – His job was to receive money from the account holders for depositing in their Saving Bank accounts – However, he used to make entries in their pass books but, would not account money in the account books of the bank nor did he pass it to the cashier and thus, caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.38,500/- – Appellant convicted by Trial Court as also by the High Court – Plea of appellant that he did not voluntarily make any confession statement and the same could not have been made the basis for conviction – Held: Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the Court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence – If the Court is satisfied that the confession is voluntary, conviction can be based upon the same – Mere allegation of threat or inducement is not enough – In the present case, the trial court as well as the High Court concurrently held that the confession statements were voluntarily made and that the same can form the basis for conviction – No ground warranting interference with the said concurrent findings – Conviction of the appellant u/s.13(1)(c) r/w s.13(2), 1988 Act and sentence of imprisonment of two years is confirmed – Conviction u/ss.477-A and 409, IPC is also confirmed – However, since the occurrence was of the year 1992-94, considering the passage of time and the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant u/s.409, IPC is reduced from five to three years – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.409 and 477-A. [2018] 12 S.C.R. 857 857 A B C D E F G H 858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R. Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. In order to accept extra-judicial confession, it must be voluntary and must inspire confidence. If the Court is satisfied that the extra-judicial confession is voluntary, it can be acted upon to base the conviction. It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated. [Paras 13, 14] [864-B-C; 865-E-F] 1.2 If the court is satisfied that the confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of Prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated. In the case at hand, as pointed out by the trial court as well as by the High Court, PW-2 and PW-3 were the senior officers of the bank and when they reached the bank for inspection, the accused submitted his confessional statement (Ex.-PW-2/A). Likewise, in the enquiry conducted by PW-3, the accused had given confession statement (Ex.-PW-3/A). Mere allegation of threat or inducement is not enough; in the court’s opinion, such inducement must be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused that by so confessing, he would get an advantage. As pointed out by the trial court and the High Court, though the confession statement has been initially made in the presence of PW-3 and one ‘MPS’ by the appellant, no question was put to PW-3 that extra-judicial confession (Ex.-PW3/A) was an outcome of any threat, inducement or allurement. The statement which runs to eleven sheets has been held to be made by the appellant voluntarily. Likewise, confession statement (Ex.-PW-2/A) made before PW-2 was in the handwriting of the appellant made in the presence of PW-2 and the then Assistant Chief Officer A B C D E F G H 859 (Inspection). Here again, it was not suggested to PW-2 that Ex.-PW-2/A was outcome of some threat or pressure. The trial court as well as the High Court concurrently held that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.