Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Arjun Ishwara Gejage, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Satara, for the murder of a person on 18th February 2014. The prosecution case was that the appellant quarrelled with the deceased in the deceased's Eeco car and assaulted him with a sickle on the neck. The deceased ran to a hotel and disclosed that four persons had assaulted him. The hotel owner (PW3) lodged an FIR. The appellant allegedly made an extra-judicial confession to a truck driver (PW12) that he had killed the deceased with a sickle. The appellant was arrested on 20th February 2014, and a mobile phone of the deceased was seized from him. He also made a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to the recovery of a sickle. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 379 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively. The appellant appealed to the High Court. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the extra-judicial confession was unreliable because PW12 was a chance witness, the confession was not corroborated by any independent evidence, and there were inconsistencies in the prosecution case. The recovery of the sickle was also doubtful as the panch witnesses turned hostile. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless required in any other case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Extra-Judicial Confession - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 - The appellant was convicted for murder based on an extra-judicial confession made to a truck driver (PW12) and recovery of a sickle. The court held that the extra-judicial confession was unreliable as PW12 was a chance witness, the confession was not corroborated by independent evidence, and the recovery of the sickle was doubtful. The conviction was set aside and the appellant was acquitted. (Paras 1-21) B) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of Circumstances - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last seen, extra-judicial confession, and recovery. The court found that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and did not conclusively point to the guilt of the appellant. The appellant was given the benefit of doubt. (Paras 1-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code based on extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 2nd December 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No.113/2014 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Law Points
- Extra-judicial confession must be voluntary
- truthful
- and corroborated by independent evidence
- Circumstantial evidence must form complete chain pointing to guilt
- Recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act requires corroboration
- Benefit of doubt when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
