STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAJA RAM

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 13-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN 
A 
v. 
RAJA RAM 
AUGUST 13, 2003 
[DORAISWSAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASA Y AT, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, J 860-Section 302-Murder-Trial-Circumstantial 
evidence-Extra-judicial confession-Witnesses to whom confession made 
inimically disposed towards the accused-Conviction and death sentence by C 
Trial Court-Acquittal by High Court-On appeal, held: Order of acquittal 
is justified as the extra-judicial confession is not acceptable. 
Criminal Trial: Extra-judicial confession-Evidentiary value of-Held: 
An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of 
mind can be relied upon and can be the sole basis of conviction-Requirement D 
of corroboration is a matter of prudence and not an invariable rule of law--
It is not open to a Court to start with a presumption that it is a weak type 
of evidence. 
Circumstantial evidence-Evidentiary value of-Held: Conviction can 
be based solely on circumstantial evidence if the circumstances are proved E 
beyond reasonable doubt and are shown to be closely connected with the 
principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 
Practice and Procedure: Criminal case-Appeal against order of 
acquittal-Interference with and re-appreciation of evidence-Scope of 
appellate Court-Held: Interference permitted where miscarriage of justice F 
arises due to acquittal-Where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast 
upon the appellate court to re-appreciate evidence. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Confession', 'EXtra-judicial Confession' and 'Circumstantial G 
Evidence '-Meaning of 
Respondent-accused was charged u/s 302 IPC 'and Section 27 Arms Act, 
1959 for having caused death of 5 persons with firearm. Information regarding 
the same was given by PW6, his brother. Prosecution case rested on 
«S 
H 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. · 
A circumstantial evidence. 7 witnesses were examined. The circumstances 
relied on were extra-judicial confession made to PWs 3 and 4, accused seen 
coming out from the side of dhani of one of the deceased immediately after 
the incident, conduct of the accused immediately after the incident being 
suspicious, human blood found on the clothes of the accused and pistol 
' 
B 
recovered at the instance of accused. As per prosecution extra-judicial 
confession was also made before PW-6, but the same was denied by the witness 
in his statement. Accused examined himself as DWI and attacked the 
credibility of evidence of PWs 3 and 4 on the ground that they were falsely 
implicating him because they were inimically disposed towards him. Trial 
Court convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC mainly relying on extra-judicial 
c confession made to PWs 3 and 4, and sentenced him to death. However, he 
was acquitted u/s 27 Arms Act, 1959. High Court finding the evidence 
t 
inadequate to fasten the guilt of the accused, acquitted him. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-state contended that there was no 
infirmity in the evidence of PWs 3 and 4; and that the circumstances were 
D sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused. 
Respondent-accused contended that the appeal being against an order 
of acquittai, scope for interference was very limited. 
~ 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1. In view of the findings recorded by the High Court about 
the non-acceptability of evidence relating to alleged extra judicial confession, 
the conclusions of the High Court cannot be said to be one which are 
unsupportable. It is improbable that the accused would repose confidence on 
F 
a person who is inimically disposed towards him, and confess his guilt. 
Similarly, PW-3 is a close relative of PW-4 and as records reveal, a person 
of doubtful antecedents, being a history sheeter. Though that alone cannot be 
,t;
the· ground to discard his evidence, the totality of circumstances cast an 
... 
indelible shadow of doubt on his evidence. Though it was the prosecution 
version that there was also extra judicial confession before informant tiaat 
G was disbelieved by both the Trial Court and the High Court in view of the fact 
that he stated differently from what was allegedly stated by him during 
investigation. He denied that the accused made any confessionalstatement 
before him. Though the prosecution t!uring cross-examination of th~ accused 
(DW-1) suggested that he had made extra judicial confession before PW-6, 
H 
significantly not even such a suggestion was given in respect of PW-3 and 4. 
[458-G, H] 
STATE O

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