Conviction on the basis of judicial separation cannot be sustained – Supreme Court

In a recent judgement by the Apex Court in the case of [State of Rajasthan v Kistoora Ram (CrA 2119 0f 2010)], the Bench of  Justice BR Gavai and Justice PS Narasimha observed that conviction based solely on the extrajudicial confession could not be sustained. 

It was observed by the court that extrajudicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there was some corroboration, the conviction on the basis of a mere extrajudicial confession cannot be sustained. The observation was made by the Supreme Court in the case where it upheld the High Court judgment under which a murder accused was acquitted.

Facts of the case 

The appeal filed in the Supreme Court was in a challenge to the judgement passed by the High Court of Rajasthan dated 15th September, 2009. 

The High Court acquitted the respondent-accused reversing the judgement dated 10th January, 1986 passed by the District and Sessions Court, Jodhpur. 

In the original criminal case judgement, the murder accused was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC, 1860 sentencing him to life imprisonment and for three years rigorous punishment under Section 201  of the IPC. 

It was stated by the prosecution that the accused killed his wife with a lathi and dragged her 100 feet away from the house and set her on fire to destroy the evidence. 

The trial court after observing the evidence convicted the accused of offence under Section 302 of the IPC for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 100 and Section 201 for rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs 100. 

The accused filed an appeal before the  Rajasthan High Court. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused of the offences charged against him. The prosecution, i.e. The State of Rajasthan filed an appeal against the judgement of the High Court in the Supreme Court.

Learned counsel for the State of Rajasthan, Mr. Vishal Meghwal submitted that the trial court under the statement of Guman Singh had convicted the accused, there was thus no reason for the High Court to interfere with the judgement. Guman Singh was an independent witness as he had served the police department and there was no reason to disbelieve his testimony. Also, Hamira Ram’s testimony to some extent is related to the extrajudicial confession is trustworthy and also corroborates with the testimony of Gurnam SIngh. It was thus submitted that the impugned judgement passed by the High Court needs to be set aside and the judgement of the trial court needs to be confirmed. 

The Supreme Court perused the judgments passed by the trial court as well as the High Court. It was observed by the court that interference by the Apex Court in an appeal against acquittal is very limited unless such acquittal was based on the view taken by the court which is impossible or perverse. 

In the present case the High Court elaborately discussed the evidence. Also, Hamira Ram turned hostile and the Court itself disbelieved the recovery of incriminating material allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused.

In the case of State of Punjab v Bhajan Singh and Others; also in the Case of  Gopal Sahv State of Bihar, it was held that the extra-judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence and unless there is some corroborative evidence in its support, the accused cannot be convicted solely based on such confession.

Thus, the view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse or impossible, which requires an interference by the Apex Court. 

Thus, the Supreme Court decided to not interfere with the impugned judgement. No merit for appeal was found by the Court.

The Appeal was dismissed and any pending application(s) would be disposed of accordingly.

Lead India provides a team of experienced advocate who have been successfully handling the cases related to murder, kidnapping and other criminal charges. Thus, if you are seeking legal advice or assistance you may contact us.