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 |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A loan dispute between two policemen led to the lender’s murder at the borrower’s home by the borrower’s wife and relatives. The wife confessed to the SHO next morning, leading to recovery of the body from her house. The trial court convicted three accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and acquitted the instigator. The High Court affirmed; the Supreme Court on appeal examined motive, eyewitness hostility, extra-judicial confessions, Section 27 recovery, and overall sufficiency of the circumstantial chain. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Distinguishes | Vindu Lachmandas Sakhrani (AIR 1994 SC 772); Suraj Pal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1995 SC 419) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Extra-judicial confessions made to police officers are inadmissible under Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act, even if volunteered.
- Section 27 CrPC disclosures must be scrutinized for who spoke first, timing, and exact location of concealment; sketchy or simultaneous “chorus” confessions are weak.
- A conviction on circumstantial evidence requires a full, unbroken chain; recovery of a weapon or body’s presence at accused’s premises without corroboration cannot alone sustain a verdict.
- Parity doctrine (extending acquittal to co-accused) does not apply where charges differ or stand on independent evidence under joint-intention provisions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Circumstantial Evidence Standard
A complete, unbroken chain of circumstances must point exclusively to the guilt of the accused; any gap raises reasonable doubt. - Motive
Although motive can link facts, its absence or unreliable proof (hostile or contradictory testimony) cannot support conviction without other evidence. - Extra-Judicial Confessions
Confessions to police officers or made in police stations are barred by Sections 25 & 26 Evidence Act and must be excluded. - Section 27 CrPC Recoveries
Discovery statements must be clear on the sequence, identity of the declarant, and specific concealment spot; sketchy or untimely statements cannot anchor conviction. - Parity Doctrine
The Court distinguished Vindu Sakhrani and Suraj Pal: acquittal of one accused in a joint charge does not automatically benefit co-accused when charges or evidence differ. - Burden of Explanation (Section 106 Evidence Act)
Even if presence of the body at accused’s premises is proven, failure to explain is only an adjunct—not a substitute for primary proof. - Conclusion
Given unreliable motive evidence, inadmissible confessions, flawed Section 27 practice, hostile eyewitnesses, and no unbroken circumstantial chain, convictions were set aside and the accused acquitted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants A2–A4)
- Acquittal of A1 under Section 302/34 IPC should extend to co-accused by parity.
- Eye-witnesses turned hostile; no direct or circumstantial link to sustain convictions.
Respondent (State of Karnataka)
- A2’s confession to the SHO, pointing out the body, motive of unpaid loan, extra-judicial confessions, and recovery of the chopper under Section 27 CrPC completed the circumstantial chain.
- Accused offered no explanation under Section 106 Evidence Act.
Factual Background
A non-repayment dispute over a ₹1 lakh loan between two police officers escalated into pre-meditated murder. On 10–11 March 2006, the borrower’s wife invited the lender to her home, blinded him with chili powder, and he was hacked to death. At dawn, she surrendered at the police station and disclosed the body’s location. Trial courts convicted three accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC; the Supreme Court examined the evidentiary sufficiency and quashed the convictions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (murder) read with Section 34 IPC (common intention) and Section 109 IPC (abetment).
- Sections 25 & 26 Evidence Act: bar on proving confessions made to police officers or in custody.
- Section 27 CrPC: admissibility of statements leading to discovery of material objects.
- Section 106 Evidence Act: burden on a party to explain circumstances.
- Section 161 CrPC: statements to police as hostile evidence when contradicted.
- Section 313 CrPC: obligation on court to question accused on incriminating evidence.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed