Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000425-000425 – 2014 |
| Diary Number | 26585/2013 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Bench |
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms precedents on inadmissibility of police confessions (Evidence Act Ss. 25/26) and on Section 27 CrPC disclosure principles |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law; Evidence |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that confessions made to police or in police custody are inadmissible under Evidence Act Ss. 25/26, and that Section 27 CrPC disclosures must identify who first made the disclosure and when; mere simultaneous or “chorus” statements without clear sequence are suspect. A conviction based on circumstantial evidence must rest on a fully established, unbroken chain. Parity principles do not extend to co-accused facing substantively different charges. Mere discovery of a body or weapon, without corroborative proof, cannot sustain a murder conviction. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Loan default of ₹1 lakh by one police officer led to persistent demands by the deceased (another policeman). The accused’s wife allegedly lured the deceased to her home, where chili powder was used to incapacitate him and he was hacked to death with two choppers. The wife confessed at the police station and pointed to the body. Three accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC; the husband (instigator) was acquitted on alibi. The High Court affirmed conviction. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts (on admissibility of confessions and Section 27 disclosures) |
| Persuasive For | High Courts, tribunals (when addressing similar confessions or circumstantial chains) |
| Distinguishes | State of West Bengal v. Vindu Lachmandas Sakhrani alias Deru (on parity doctrine not extending to different charges) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confessions made to police officers or in police custody are wholly inadmissible under Evidence Act Ss. 25/26, even if volunteered.
- Section 27 CrPC disclosures must clearly identify who first made the discovery and at what point; simultaneous/confined disclosures risk rejection.
- Parity principle (co-accused benefit) applies only where charges and evidence streams are identical; acquittal under Section 109 IPC does not automatically exonerate co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Mere presence of the body at accused’s premises or mere recovery of a weapon, without corroboration, cannot sustain conviction.
- Reinforces that circumstantial cases demand an unbroken, cogent chain of evidence; absence of motive or credible witnesses may rupture that chain.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Standard for Circumstantial Evidence: Reiterated requirement of complete, unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt; any gap creates reasonable doubt.
- Motive & Presence of Body: Motive evidence proved unreliable—witnesses turned hostile or contradicted prior statements; no credible proof of body’s presence at accused’s home.
- Evidence Act Ss. 25/26: Held all extra-judicial confessions to police or in police station inadmissible, whether made to SHO, sentry, or third parties inside police station.
- Section 27 CrPC Disclosures: Without clear identification of first discloser and precise chronology, recovery-based disclosures are sketchy and cannot be relied upon.
- Parity Doctrine Distinguished: Acquittal of husband on instigation charge (Section 109 IPC) does not benefit co-accused charged under substantive murder provisions (Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC).
- Conclusion: Convictions set aside; accused acquitted for want of legally admissible, reliable evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Accused A2–A4)
- Parity with A1 (instigation charge) mandates their acquittal, relying on Vindu Sakhrani and Suraj Pal.
- Eyewitnesses either hostile or gave contradictory testimony; no direct link to crime.
Respondent (State of Karnataka)
- The deceased’s body was discovered in A2’s house, pointed out by her—no explanation adduced under Section 106 Evidence Act.
- Motive established by debt and extra-judicial confessions; recovery of chopper under Section 27 completes the chain of circumstances.
Factual Background
A police officer (A1) took a loan of ₹1 lakh from a fellow officer (deceased) and defaulted. The deceased, driver to an SP, repeatedly demanded repayment. Allegedly at A1’s instigation, A2 (his wife), A3 and A4 lured the deceased to A2’s home on 10 March 2006; chili powder was thrown to immobilize him, and he was hacked to death with choppers. A2 then went to the police station at sunrise and confessed to the SHO, who later conducted an inquest and recorded the body at her house. Three accused were convicted; the instigator (A1) was acquitted on alibi grounds.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (Murder) read with Section 34 IPC (Common intention): Substantive basis for conviction of A2–A4.
- Section 109 IPC (Abetment): Charged against A1 (acquitted on alibi). Parity doctrine inapplicable to co-accused under different sections.
- Evidence Act Section 25: Bars proof of any confession to a police officer.
- Evidence Act Section 26: Bars proof of confession made in police custody unless before a Magistrate.
- CrPC Section 27: Permits proof of facts discovered from information given by accused, but requires clear sequence and locus of disclosure.
- Evidence Act Section 106: Places burden of explanation on accused only if prosecution establishes prima facie case; presence of body alone insufficient.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on police confessions and Section 27 disclosures affirmed.