Not Prudent To Sustain Conviction Based On Extra Judicial Confession: SC Acquits Rape & Murder Case Accused; Sets Aside Death Penalty
|The Supreme Court allowed the Appeal challenging the sentence of death imposed by the Trial Court and upheld by the Bombay High Court.
The Supreme Court acquitted and set aside the death penalty awarded to a man for the murder of a 23-year-old woman while holding that it is not prudent to sustain a conviction based on a purported extra-judicial confession.
The Court allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellant challenging the Judgment of the Bombay High Court which upheld his conviction and the sentence of death imposed by the Trial Court under Sections 302, 364, 366, 376(2)(m), 376A, 392 read with Section 397 and 201 of the IPC.
A Bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice KV Viswanathan held, “We are not impressed with the evidence of the recovery and, in any event, merely based on the recovery no conviction for the offence charged could be sustained against the appellant in this case.”
Advocate Shri Singh represented the Appellant, while ASG Raja Thakare appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The deceased victim was working in Mumbai and residing at a Hostel. She last contacted her father while travelling to Mumbai from Vijayawada. Her body was found in a decomposed and partially burnt state near the Eastern Express Highway.
The Prosecution relied on CCTV footage allegedly showing the Appellant with the victim at the railway station. The Prosecution also relied on an extra-judicial confession by the Appellant wherein he allegedly disclosed that he had poured petrol on the dead body of the victim and set it on fire after committing on rape her.
The Appellant contended that the witnesses’s testimony regarding the extra-judicial confession which was inherently a weak piece of evidence was completely unreliable particularly when the prosecution’s own witness speaks of his being taken into custody.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court referred to its decision in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B., wherein it was held that “there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.”
The Bench held, “we do not feel it prudent to sustain the conviction based on the purported extra judicial confession given to PW-9. Moreover, there is no corroboration in material particulars and hence we are inclined to reject the extra judicial confession purportedly given.”
“Extra judicial confession, by its very nature, has been held to be a weak piece of evidence. Normally it is given to persons who enjoyed the confidence and trust of the accused. From the evidence mentioned above, we are not able to find that PW-9 enjoyed the confidence of the accused so as to safely infert hat the accused would have made a clean breast of things to PW9,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Bombay…and acquit the appellant with regard to the offences for which he was charged in this case. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap v. The State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 116)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Shri Singh, Pratiksha Basarkar, Sakshi Jain and Surabhi Vaya; AOR Pritha Srikumar Iyer
Respondent: ASG Raja Thakare; Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Akash Kavade, Aniruddha Deshmukh, Aditya Krishna, Preet S. Phanse and Adarsh Dubey; AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande