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

Date of the Judgment: 16th March, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 238

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

Can a conviction be upheld when the evidence is primarily circumstantial and the key piece of evidence, an extra-judicial confession, is not corroborated by other evidence? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, emphasizing the high standards of proof required in criminal cases. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, overturned the conviction of Pradeep Kumar, highlighting significant flaws in the prosecution’s case and the lower courts’ reliance on weak evidence. Justice Sanjay Karol authored the judgment.

Case Background

On October 1, 2003, Umesh Chowdhary was found murdered in village Chitarpur. The police registered FIR No. 126/03 at Police Station Dhaurpur. The investigation revealed that the accused, Pradeep Kumar, had a motive to use the shop owned by the deceased, which led to the alleged murder. The Trial Court convicted Pradeep Kumar and another accused, Bhainsa alias Nandlal, under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) (murder with common intention) and Section 201/34 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence with common intention). However, the High Court acquitted Bhainsa alias Nandlal but upheld Pradeep Kumar’s conviction. Pradeep Kumar then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted both Pradeep Kumar and Bhainsa alias Nandlal, relying on an extra-judicial confession by Pradeep Kumar, testimonies of witnesses, and the recovery of the deceased’s shop keys and some money from Pradeep Kumar. The High Court, in appeal, acquitted Bhainsa alias Nandlal, citing that a co-accused’s confession cannot be used against another accused, but upheld the conviction of Pradeep Kumar. The High Court found the testimonies of witnesses Ramkripal Soni (PW-1) and Gopal Yadav (PW-7) to be reliable and the extra-judicial confession to be voluntary. Pradeep Kumar then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section deals with how much of information received from accused may be proved.

Arguments

The prosecution’s case rested on three main pillars:

• Extra-judicial Confession: The prosecution claimed that Pradeep Kumar confessed to the murder before Ramkripal Soni (PW-1) and Gopal Yadav (PW-7).
• Prior Animosity: There was alleged tension between Pradeep Kumar and the deceased over the use of the shop.
• Recovery of Items: The keys of the deceased’s shop and Rs. 300 were recovered from Pradeep Kumar.

The defense argued that:

• The extra-judicial confession was not reliable, as it was not supported by other evidence and the witnesses were not credible.
• There was no concrete evidence of prior animosity between the accused and the deceased.
• The recovered items were not sent for chemical analysis and were not linked to the crime.
• The investigation was flawed and lacked crucial evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession was sustainable.
2. Whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Whether the lower courts had properly appreciated the evidence on record.

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

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Hari Charan Kurmi vs State Of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 to uphold the acquittal of Bhainsa alias Nandlal, stating that a co-accused’s confession cannot be used against another accused.
• The Court used the principles laid down in Sahadevan v. State of T.N., (2012) 6 SCC 403 to assess the extra-judicial confession, finding it weak and unreliable.
• The Court reiterated the standard of proof from Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Another v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, emphasizing that the accused must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Court emphasized the principle that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused as per 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.
• The Court referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahrashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 to outline the essential conditions for conviction based on circumstantial evidence, which were not met in this case.
• The Court reiterated the principle from Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (1973) 2 SCC 808 that when two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted.
• The Court stated the presumption of innocence remains in favor of the accused as per Babu v. State Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189.
• The Court highlighted that it would interfere with concurrent findings of fact where gross errors are committed as per 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.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence and the significant flaws in the prosecution’s case. The Court found the extra-judicial confession to be unreliable, the circumstantial evidence to be weak, and the investigation to be poorly conducted. The Court emphasized that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot replace solid evidence and that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them due to the lack of substantial support. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The extra-judicial confession was not reliable and was not corroborated by other evidence.
• The circumstantial evidence did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused.
• The investigation was flawed and lacked crucial evidence.
• The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large and it divides vague conjectures from solid conclusions.”
• “The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.”
• “The presumption of innocence remains in favor of the accused unless his guilt is proven beyond all reasonable doubts against him.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench comprised of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, with Justice Sanjay Karol authoring the judgment.

The implications for future cases are that convictions based on weak circumstantial evidence and uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions are likely to be overturned by higher courts. The judgment reinforces the importance of thorough investigations and the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment. The Court primarily reiterated existing principles of criminal jurisprudence.

Key Takeaways

• Extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by other evidence to be considered reliable.
• Suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for concrete evidence.
• The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The benefit of doubt must always be given to the accused.
• Investigations must be thorough and must collect all relevant evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the Appellant, Pradeep Kumar, be released forthwith unless 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 judgment reinforces the existing principles of criminal jurisprudence and does not introduce any new legal principles. It reiterates the high standard of proof required in criminal cases and the importance of thorough investigations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Pradeep Kumar underscores the importance of a robust justice system that prioritizes the rights of the accused and demands a high standard of proof. The judgment serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be based on suspicion or weak evidence, and that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court’s emphasis on the unreliability of extra-judicial confessions, when not supported by other evidence, provides a critical safeguard against wrongful convictions.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Extra-judicial Confession
• Standard of Proof
• Benefit of Doubt
• Flawed Investigation
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

FAQ

Q: What is an extra-judicial confession?

A: An extra-judicial confession is a statement made by an accused person admitting guilt to someone outside of a court or legal setting, such as to a friend or family member. The Supreme Court has stated that extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and need to be corroborated with other evidence to be considered reliable.

Q: What does “proof beyond reasonable doubt” mean?

A: “Proof beyond reasonable doubt” is the standard of evidence required in criminal cases. It means that the prosecution must present enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. It does not mean absolute certainty, but it requires a very high degree of probability.

Q: What is circumstantial evidence?

A: Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. Unlike direct evidence, circumstantial evidence does not directly prove a key fact. The Supreme Court has stated that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and should exclude every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

Q: What should I do if I am accused of a crime?

A: If you are accused of a crime, it is crucial to seek legal counsel immediately. Avoid making statements to anyone, including the police, without consulting a lawyer. A lawyer can help you understand your rights and navigate the legal process.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court acquit the accused in this case?

A: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was weak, the extra-judicial confession was unreliable, the investigation was flawed, and the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively point to the guilt of the accused.