Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction based on extra-judicial confession: Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal (2023)

Date of the Judgment: March 3, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 198

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

Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession, especially when the trial court has found the witnesses unreliable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal. The case involved a man convicted by the High Court based on an alleged extra-judicial confession, reversing the trial court’s acquittal. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the limitations of extra-judicial confessions.

Case Background

On March 11, 1983, police discovered the body of an unidentified married woman near the railway track at Ambalgisan Railway Station. The woman appeared to have been murdered with a sharp weapon. During the investigation, it was revealed that the appellant, Nikhil Chandra Mondal, his wife (the deceased), and their son had attended the Fullara Mela in Lavpur Gram Panchayat. The deceased was reported missing after the Mela. It was alleged that the appellant confessed to Manick Pal (PW-10), Pravat Kumar Misra (PW-11), and Kanai Ch. Saha (PW-12) that he had murdered his wife with a bhojali at the spot where her body was found. The police filed a charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the appellant on March 31, 1987, finding the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the extra-judicial confession unreliable. The State appealed to the High Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision on December 15, 2008, convicting the appellant. The High Court relied on the extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the blood-stained clothes and weapon. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which defines the punishment for murder. The Supreme Court also considered the principles of circumstantial evidence and the admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions. The Court referred to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the discovery of facts based on information received from an accused. The Court also emphasized the importance of the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] regarding circumstantial evidence and in Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 6 SCC 403] regarding extra-judicial confessions.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 states:

“How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The trial court’s acquittal was well-reasoned and should not have been reversed.
• The testimonies of Manick Pal (PW-10), Pravat Kumar Misra (PW-11), and Kanai Ch. Saha (PW-12) were inconsistent and unreliable.
• The trial court had the benefit of witnessing the demeanor of the witnesses and rightly disbelieved them.
• An extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires strong corroboration, which was absent in this case.
• The recovery of the blood-stained clothes and the weapon was not conducted as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the recovery was from an open place.
• Interference in a finding of acquittal is not warranted unless the finding is perverse or illegal/impossible.

State’s Arguments:

• The extra-judicial confession made before PWs 10 to 12 was trustworthy, reliable, and cogent.
• The High Court rightly reversed the judgment of acquittal, as the testimonies of the witnesses were reliable.
• The recovery of the blood-stained clothes and the weapon corroborated the testimonies of PWs 10 to 12.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the well-reasoned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court?
2. Whether the extra-judicial confession was reliable and trustworthy to form the basis of conviction?
3. Whether the recovery of the blood-stained clothes and weapon could be used to corroborate the extra-judicial confession?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s conviction and affirming the trial court’s acquittal. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case rested solely on an extra-judicial confession, which is a weak piece of evidence. The trial court had found the witnesses unreliable, and the High Court should not have interfered with this finding. The Court also held that the recovery of the blood-stained clothes and weapon could not be used as corroborating evidence because it did not comply with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]: The Court followed the principles laid down in this case regarding the requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]: The Court referred to this case to highlight the distinction between “may be proved” and “must be proved,” emphasizing the need for certainty in criminal convictions.
• Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 6 SCC 403]: The Court followed the principles laid down in this case regarding the weak evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions and the need for corroboration.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court referred to this section to define the offense of murder, for which the appellant was charged.
• Section 27, Evidence Act, 1872: The Court referred to this section to assess the admissibility of the recovered evidence, finding that it did not comply with the requirements.
• Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the scope of interference in a case of acquittal and the double presumption of innocence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the fact that the prosecution’s case hinged entirely on an extra-judicial confession, which is considered a weak form of evidence. The Court emphasized that the trial court, having directly observed the witnesses, had found them unreliable. The High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal without sufficient justification. The Court also noted that the recovery of the weapon and clothes was not conducted properly, making it inadmissible as corroborating evidence. The Court reiterated the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that this presumption is further strengthened when a trial court acquits the accused.

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by legal principles (60%) than by the specific facts of the case (40%). The Court focused on the proper application of rules regarding extra-judicial confessions, circumstantial evidence, and the scope of appellate review.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and require strong corroboration.
• Trial court’s observations of witness demeanor are crucial and should be given due weight.
• Recovery of evidence must be done as per the procedure established by law.
• Appellate courts should not interfere with acquittals unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or impossible.
• The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principles regarding extra-judicial confessions, emphasizing that they cannot be the sole basis of conviction without adequate corroboration. It also reiterates the importance of the trial court’s observations and the limited scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction based solely on an extra-judicial confession, without proper corroboration and when the trial court has found the witnesses unreliable, cannot be sustained. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal highlights the importance of adhering to established legal principles when evaluating evidence in criminal cases. The Court’s emphasis on the weakness of extra-judicial confessions and the need for corroboration serves as a reminder of the high standard of proof required for a conviction. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the benefit of the doubt should always go to the accused, and that appellate courts should exercise caution when overturning acquittals.