Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Citing Lack of Evidence: Pradeep Kumar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2023) INSC 242

Date of the Judgment: 16th March, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 242

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sanjay Karol, J.

Can a conviction be upheld when the evidence is primarily circumstantial and the extra-judicial confession is not fully corroborated? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession. The Court, upon review, found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. This judgment highlights the importance of stringent standards of proof in criminal cases. The judgment was authored by Justice Sanjay Karol, with Justice B.R. Gavai concurring.

Case Background

On October 1, 2003, Umesh Chowdhary, a resident of Chitarpur village, was allegedly murdered. The police registered FIR No. 126/03 at Dhaurpur Police Station. The investigation began on October 2, 2003, led by I. Tirkey (PW-19). The prosecution alleged that the accused, Pradeep Kumar, harbored animosity towards the deceased because of a dispute over the shop owned by the deceased. The prosecution’s case rested on an extra-judicial confession by Pradeep Kumar, prior animosity between the parties, and the recovery of the deceased’s shop keys and ₹300 from Pradeep Kumar.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Pradeep Kumar and another accused, Bhainsa alias Nandlal, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for murder, and under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing disappearance of evidence. The High Court upheld Pradeep Kumar’s conviction but acquitted Bhainsa alias Nandlal, relying on the principle that a confession of a co-accused cannot be used against another accused, as established in Hari Charan Kurmi vs State Of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184. Pradeep Kumar then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: How much of information received from accused may be proved.

The Supreme Court also refers to the principles governing extra-judicial confessions as laid down in Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403, emphasizing that such confessions are weak evidence and must be examined with great care.

Arguments

The prosecution’s case rested on the following main arguments:

• Extra-judicial Confession: The accused, Pradeep Kumar, confessed his guilt to Ramkripal Soni (PW-1) and Gopal Yadav (PW-7).
• Prior Animosity: There was prior tension between Pradeep Kumar and the deceased over the use of the shop.
• Recovery of Articles: The keys of the deceased’s shop and ₹300 were recovered from Pradeep Kumar.

The defense argued that:

• Unreliable Witnesses: The witnesses, PW-1 and PW-7, were not reliable. PW-1 did not support the prosecution, and PW-7 was himself a suspect.
• Lack of Corroboration: The extra-judicial confession was not corroborated by other evidence.
• Incomplete Investigation: The investigation was conducted poorly, with key witnesses not examined and crucial evidence not sent for forensic analysis.
• No Direct Evidence: There was no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime.

The prosecution argued that the extra-judicial confession was voluntary and credible, and that the witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. They also argued that the recovery of the keys and money further linked the accused to the crime.

The defense countered that the confession was not voluntary, and the witnesses were unreliable and that the recovery of the articles did not prove the accused’s guilt. The defense also highlighted the lack of direct evidence and the shoddy investigation.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the extra-judicial confession of the accused was voluntary, truthful, and reliable.
2. Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to convict the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides. The court found that the extra-judicial confession was not reliable, as the witnesses were not credible. The court also noted that the investigation was flawed, and there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authorities and their use by the Court:

• The Court relied on Hari Charan Kurmi vs State Of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184* to highlight that a confession of a co-accused cannot be used against another accused.
• The Court referred to Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403* to emphasize that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and must be scrutinized carefully.
• The Court cited Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Another v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793* stating that the accused must be, and not merely may be, guilty before a court can convict.
• The Court reiterated the principle in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406*, Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 343)* and State v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, (2011) 3 SCC 109* that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
• The Court applied the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahrashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116* regarding the essential conditions for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• The Court followed Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808* stating that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted.
• The Court reiterated the principle in Babu v. State Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189* that the presumption of innocence remains unless guilt is proven beyond doubt.
• The Court also referred to Ramaphupala Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1970) 3 SCC 474*, Balak Ram v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 219* and Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai V. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217* to emphasize the circumstances where the court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of lower courts.

The Court observed, “The distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large and it divides vague conjectures from solid conclusions.” The Court also noted, “The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.” and, “the circumstances present before us, taken together, do not establish conclusively only one hypothesis, that being the guilt of the accused, Pradeep Kumar.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Pradeep Kumar was heavily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence and the unreliable nature of the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had not established a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. The Court was particularly critical of the flawed investigation, the uncorroborated extra-judicial confession, and the contradictory testimonies of key witnesses. The Court also stressed the importance of the principle that the accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the benefit of doubt must always be given to the accused.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and must be corroborated by other evidence.
• The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.
• The benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
• Investigations must be thorough and must not overlook key evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the immediate release of the Appellant, Pradeep Kumar, unless he was required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained based on weak circumstantial evidence and an uncorroborated extra-judicial confession. The case reinforces the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the already established principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted Pradeep Kumar, emphasizing the importance of stringent standards of proof in criminal cases. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. The judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.