{"id":993,"date":"2023-10-16T13:45:23","date_gmt":"2023-10-16T08:15:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=993"},"modified":"2023-10-16T13:45:23","modified_gmt":"2023-10-16T08:15:23","slug":"supreme-court-holds-that-it-is-not-possible-to-accept-the-case-of-the-prosecution-which-is-entirely-based-on-the-extra%c2%acjudicial-confession-made-by-the-appellant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-holds-that-it-is-not-possible-to-accept-the-case-of-the-prosecution-which-is-entirely-based-on-the-extra%c2%acjudicial-confession-made-by-the-appellant\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court holds that it is not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra\u00acjudicial confession made by the appellant"},"content":{"rendered":"

Moorthy (<\/strong>Appellant) Vs. <\/strong>State of Tamil Nadu (<\/strong>Respondent)<\/h2>\n

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.975 of 2011<\/strong>
\n(2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and SANJAY KAROL JJ., delivered by ABHAY S. OKA J.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable\u00a0\u00a0 under\u00a0\u00a0 Sections\u00a0\u00a0 302\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 201\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the Indian\u00a0\u00a0 Penal\u00a0\u00a0 Code.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 He\u00a0\u00a0 was sentenced\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 undergo\u00a0\u00a0 life\u00a0\u00a0 imprisonment\u00a0\u00a0 for\u00a0\u00a0 the offence punishable under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment\u00a0\u00a0 for\u00a0\u00a0 seven\u00a0\u00a0 years\u00a0\u00a0 for\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 offence punishable\u00a0\u00a0 under\u00a0\u00a0 Section\u00a0\u00a0 201,\u00a0\u00a0 IPC.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sentences were\u00a0\u00a0 ordered\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 run\u00a0\u00a0 concurrently.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The\u00a0\u00a0 appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the court has rightly convicted the appellant based entirely on the extra\u00adjudicial confession of the appellant?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that PW nos.1 and 2 were\u00a0\u00a0 complete\u00a0\u00a0 strangers\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 appellant. Moreover, the alleged extra\u00adjudicial confession was made by the appellant before the said two witnesses 2\u00a0\u00a0 months\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 11\u00a0\u00a0 days\u00a0\u00a0 after\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 date\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the incident.\u00a0\u00a0 The learned counsel further submitted that\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 conduct\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 PW\u00ad1\u00a0\u00a0 who\u00a0\u00a0 was\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 Village Administrative Officer, does not inspire confidence as he immediately did not report the matter to the police.\u00a0 The learned counsel further submitted that the\u00a0\u00a0 identity\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 body\/skeleton\u00a0\u00a0 was\u00a0\u00a0 not established.\u00a0\u00a0 He submitted that recourse was not taken to DNA test for identification of the skeleton. He\u00a0\u00a0 also\u00a0\u00a0 submitted\u00a0\u00a0 that\u00a0\u00a0 there\u00a0\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 a\u00a0\u00a0 material discrepancy in the evidence of PW\u00ad18 Investigating Officer and PW\u00ad1 about the place from which the stick,\u00a0 which\u00a0\u00a0 was\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 weapon\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 offence,\u00a0\u00a0 was discovered.\u00a0\u00a0 He pointed out that PW nos.8 to 11 who were cited as witnesses to support the theory of\u00a0\u00a0 last\u00a0\u00a0 seen\u00a0\u00a0 together,\u00a0\u00a0 did\u00a0\u00a0 not\u00a0\u00a0 support\u00a0\u00a0 the prosecution.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong> Dr.\u00a0\u00a0 Joseph\u00a0\u00a0 Aristotle<\/p>\n

The\u00a0\u00a0 learned\u00a0\u00a0 counsel appearing for the State submitted that there are no major\u00a0\u00a0 discrepancies\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 contradictions\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 the version of PW nos.1 and 18.\u00a0\u00a0 He submitted that though PW\u00ad8 was declared as hostile, his evidence cannot\u00a0\u00a0 be\u00a0\u00a0 discarded\u00a0\u00a0 in\u00a0\u00a0 its\u00a0\u00a0 entirety.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 He\u00a0\u00a0 placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. v. State of Gujarat<\/em><\/strong>.\u00a0\u00a0 He submitted that the discovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant is a very important circumstance against the accused.\u00a0\u00a0 He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Anuj Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and acquitted the accused, holding that, \u201cThere is serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case regarding the recovery of a dead body at the instance of the appellant and the recovery of the alleged instrument of the offence at the instance of the appellant.\u00a0 Most importantly, for the\u00a0\u00a0 reasons\u00a0\u00a0 we\u00a0\u00a0 have\u00a0\u00a0 recorded\u00a0\u00a0 earlier,\u00a0\u00a0 it\u00a0\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra\u00adjudicial confession made by the appellant.\u00a0\u00a0 Thus, there was no legal evidence on record to convict the appellant.\u00a0 In any case, the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Further, the court observed that, \u201cExtra\u00adjudicial\u00a0\u00a0 confession\u00a0\u00a0 is\u00a0\u00a0 always\u00a0\u00a0 a\u00a0\u00a0 weak piece of evidence and in this case, for the reasons which we\u00a0 have recorded earlier,\u00a0 there\u00a0 is serious doubt\u00a0\u00a0 about\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 genuineness\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 prosecution case\u00a0\u00a0 regarding\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 extra\u00adjudicial\u00a0\u00a0 confession. Therefore,\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0 prosecution\u00a0\u00a0 case\u00a0 about\u00a0\u00a0 the\u00a0\u00a0 extrajudicial confession does not deserve acceptance.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Moorthy (Appellant) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Respondent) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.975 of 2011 (2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and SANJAY KAROL JJ., delivered by ABHAY S. OKA J.) Facts: The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable\u00a0\u00a0 under\u00a0\u00a0 Sections\u00a0\u00a0 302\u00a0\u00a0 and\u00a0\u00a0 201\u00a0\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 the Indian\u00a0\u00a0 Penal\u00a0\u00a0 Code.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 He\u00a0\u00a0 was sentenced\u00a0\u00a0 to\u00a0\u00a0 undergo\u00a0\u00a0 life\u00a0\u00a0 imprisonment\u00a0\u00a0 for\u00a0\u00a0 the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":995,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/993","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=993"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/993\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":996,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/993\/revisions\/996"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/995"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=993"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=993"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=993"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}