Manifest Illegality In Relying On Evidence Of 'Extra Judicial Confession: Allahabad HC Acquits Man In 25 Years Old Murder Case

The Allahabad High Court has acquitted a man in a 25 years old Murder Case citing manifest illegality by Trial Court for relying on Extra Judicial Confession for conviction.

The Court was considering an appeal against Trial Court judgment convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him with rigorous life imprisonment.

The division-bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra and Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan observed, "The aforesaid analysis/ appreciation of the evidence made by us is sufficient to demonstrate that firstly the trial court has committed manifest illegality in relying on the evidence of 'extra judicial confession' as the same has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and is highly improbable, secondly the trial court has also committed another mistake by relying on the recovery of the 'sabbal' at the instance of appellant and thirdly the trial court has committed another mistake by not considering the fact that the medical evidence in this case is running contrary to the ocular version of the incident as provided by the Prosecution Witnesses."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Lt. Col Retd. Ss.Yadav while the Respondent was represented by Government Advocate.

Facts of the Case

The informant, had his Coal Depot where the deceased was working as clerk and appellant was employed as Chaukidar. On one unfortunate night when he came there, he found his clerk dead as he was assaulted brutally on his head and thereafter he launched a search for appellant and he was found in the 'Arhar Field' situated nearby and after seeing the informant and his associates he started fleeing but was overpowered and apprehended and thereafter he confessed his guilt in terms that the deceased had levelled false allegation of theft against him and had not paid him his dues, so he assaulted the deceased with 'sabbal' on his head whereby he died and hid himself in the Arhar Field. It was also stated by the informant that he tied the appellant with a rope at his coal depot and has come to lodge the FIR.

Appellant while in the custody of police confessed his guilt before the Investigating Officer and there after on his pointing out a blood stained 'Sabbal' was recovered from the heap of coal situated nearby. After completion of evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where he denied all the evidence produced by the prosecution and stated further that he was not employed at the coal depot of informant and was apprehended from his home and was falsely implicated in this case and before arresting him, the informant warned him to give evidence in his favour pertaining to the land, power of attorney of which was in favour of opponent of informant.

The Trial Court found the case of the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with Rs. 3000/- as fine and in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months.

Amicus Curiae vehemently submitted that the trial court committed manifest illegality in appreciating the evidence available on record and was convicted the appellant on the basis of insufficient evidence.

It was further submitted that the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and it was the duty of the prosecution to prove each and every circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and the cumulative effect of these proved circumstances must form a chain and this chain must be so strong as to not leave any doubt so far as the role of the appellant is concerned in committing the offence but the story as cooked up by the prosecution is highly improbable as it is hard to believe that after committing the offence the appellant would hide himself in the 'Arhar Field' and wait for the arrival of the informant and when the informant arrived along with three other associates he would make an attempt to run away.

It was also submitted that a specific defence was taken by the appellant before the trial court that he was not employed at the Coal Depot of the informant but this aspect of the matter has not been considered in right perspective by the trial court and despite no evidence having been produced by the prosecution with regard to the employment of the appellant at the Coal Depot of the informant, the trial court has taken it to be proved. It was next submitted that there are embellishments and material contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, so far as the recovery of a 'sabbal' on the pointing out by the appellant was concerned.

It was further submitted that the appellant was also shown to have made an extra judicial confession before the informant and his other associates. However, there were material contradictions pertaining to the making of such confession and it could not be believed that when the appellant was having all the time in the world to flee away from scene of the crime, he waited for the arrival of informant and it appears that the real story has been suppressed by the informant who was inimical towards the appellant specially in the background that the appellant was a marginal witness of a power of attorney executed in favour of a person who had lodged civil proceedings against the informant.

It was further submitted that keeping in view the material contradictions emerging in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and keeping in view the improbable prosecution story the appellant was entitled to be acquitted of the charges and the judgment and order of the trial court is liable to be set aside.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset pointed out that it is evident that the case of the prosecution before the trial court was based on the circumstantial evidence and that when he was nabbed he was overpowered and tied at the spot and was made to give an Extra Judicial confession before informant and his associates that he committed the murder of the deceased.

The Court pointed out that the law with regard to the manner in which the evidence of extra judicial confession is to be appreciated is now no more res integra and the same has been set at rest by a catena of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It thus referred to Lal Mohammed Manjur Ansari V/S. State of Gujarat (2024) in which it was held that normal rule of human conduct is that a person would confess the commission of a serious crime to a person in whom he has implicit faith.

"It is to be recalled that for making an extra judicial confession there must be some reason available with the accused of the crime and the actual words used for making such extra judicial confession are also significant, in order to show as to whether there was any reason available for the accused for making such an extra judicial confession. The P.W.1- Bhagwan Prasad Mishra in his statement recorded before the trial court has stated that the appellant confessed before him that he committed the murder of the deceased as he had levelled false allegation of theft against him and also did not pay him money. However, P.W.2- Shiv Shankar in his evidence has stated that when they apprehended the appellant he made an extra judicial confession that the deceased had spoken of eliminating him (appellant) and it is on this score he has committed his murder. Thus, it may be noticed that both these witnesses of making of extra judicial confession by the appellant, namely, P.W.1- Bhagwan Prasad Mishra and P.W.2- Shiv Shankar have stated different reasons for committing the murder of the deceased by the appellant which cast a cloud of suspicion, with regard of, making of such an extra judicial confession by the appellant," the Court observed.

The Court also pointed out contradiction in the statements of witnesses on vital issue of obtaining the information of the murder and noted that this also affects the case of the prosecution adversely.

It also raised doubt on the version of the prosecution that the appellant was found in a 'Arhar Field' that there was a pucca road by the side of the Coal Depot which was going towards Ayodhya/ Faizabad, the appellant could have easily run away by any means of transport available to him on the road in the almost six hours between the alleged murder and the coming of the prosecution witnesses to the scene of crime.

"This part of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could not be believed in the background of the fact that it has also come in the evidence of these prosecution witnesses that the appellant was a marginal witness of a 'Power of Attorney' executed in favour of a person who had filed a civil suit against the informant with regard to the cancellation of the sale-deed. Thus, it is evident on the face of the record that the appellant was not having cordial relations with the informant and hence there was no reason, to our understanding as to why he would confess his guilt before such persons who are inimical towards him and in all probability they could not render any help to him," the Court observed.

The Court also stressed that for placing reliance on the extra judicial confession it is bound to be voluntarily made.

"....the attending facts and circumstances of the instant case are such wherein it could not be believed that the confession has been made by the appellant out of his free will as he had been tied by the P.W 1 and P.W. 2 with a rope and it is admitted to the P.W.1- Bhagwan Prasad Mishra that after tying the appellant with a rope he had gone to the Police Station to lodge the FIR. Thus according to own version of the prosecution, the extra judicial confession made by the appellant in presence of informant and P.W. 2 - Shiv Shankar could not be termed as having been made voluntarily and no reliance could be placed on it," the Court observed.

The Court therefore concluded that the extra judicial confession relied on by the trial court highly improbable and in our considered opinion the trial court has committed manifest illegality in relying on such a weak evidence.

The Appeal was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Jaimangal Yadav vs. The State Of U.P.

Click here to read/ download Order