RAMANAND @ NANDLAL BHARTI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2022] 5 S.C.R. 162 · Decided: 13-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 15 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 5 S.C.R.
RAMANAND @ NANDLAL BHARTI
v.
 STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 64-65 of 2022)
OCTOBER 13, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, CJI, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Prosecution case was that on
fateful day, appellant-accused murdered his wife and four children
with a sharp cutting weapon while they were sleeping – Motive
behind the murder was attributed to extra marital affair of appellant
with one married lady which was highly opposed by the deceased-
wife – Discovery statement made by appellant and consequently
recovery made – Appellant said to have made extra judicial
confession to prosecution witness – Trial court convicted the
appellant and passed death sentence – High Court confirmed the
death sentence – Hence instant appeal – Held: Present case is based
on circumstantial evidence – Mere discovery is insufficient to infer
the authorship of concealment by the person who discovered the
weapon – The exact words of the accused person while making
discovery statement was not deposed by prosecution witness –
Further, the contents of panchnama were not proved – Credibility
of police witness (PW-6 and PW-7) was doubtful and evidence of
discovery was held to be unreliable – Credibility of extra judicial
confession was also doubted in view of oral evidence of prosecution
witness – As circumstance relating to extra judicial confession and
discovery of weapon of offence were not established, the chain of
circumstantial evidence was not established fully and thus other
circumstance such as motive or the evidence of false explanation
offered by the appellant as an additional link in chain of evidence
were not considered – Further, the explanation offered by the
accused for injuries on his body could be said to be compatible
with the defense story – Prosecution failed to establish the case
beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction is set aside.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.8 – Relevance of Motive – Circumstantial
Evidence – There cannot be straight jacket formula for appreciation
[2022] 5 S.C.R. 162
162
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
163
of circumstantial evidence – Circumstances suggesting guilt must
be cogently and firmly established – The same must be of definite
tendency and conclusive in nature – The circumstances should form
the chain which conclusively points towards the guilt of accused in
all human probability – Circumstantial evidence must be complete
and should be devoid of any hypothesis giving room for accused’s
innocence but must support only one hypothesis i.e. his guilt – Motive,
though not as such an element of crime, but it assumes greater
importance in cases resting on circumstantial evidence – Absence
of motive could be a missing link of incriminating circumstances,
but once the prosecution has established the other incriminating
circumstances to its entirety, absence of motive will  not give any
benefit to the accused – Motive could be an important circumstance
but it per se does not take place as conclusive proof that the person
concerned was the author of the crime.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.27 – Discovery Statement – Information
received from the accused must result into discovery of fact for s.
27 to apply – While making such deposition, the accused must be in
police custody – Only so much of information as relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered is admissible – Further mere discovery
cannot be interpreted as sufficient to infer authorship of concealment
by the person who discovered the weapon – There might be the
possibility that the person may have seen somebody concealing the
weapon, therefore it cannot be presumed or inferred that because a
person discovered weapon, he was the person who concealed it,
least it can be presumed that he used it.
Evidence Act, 1872: Confession – Classification and Scope
– Confession can be classified as Judicial and extra-judicial –
Former relates to those which are made before the Magistrate or
Court – Extra Judicial are made before a private individual and
which may include judicial officer in private capacity and
Magistrate not especially empowered u/s 164 CrPC or the one so
empowered but receiving confession at stage where s.164 does not
apply.
Evidence Act, 1872: Extra Judicial Confession – Weightage
– It is a weak type of evidence  since it can be easily procured
whenever direct evidence is not available – It is not open to the
Court to start with a presumption that extra-jud

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