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

Date of the Judgment: 3 March 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 178

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

Can a High Court overturn a trial court’s acquittal based on a weak extra-judicial confession? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, emphasizing the need for strong corroborating evidence when relying on extra-judicial confessions for convictions. This case highlights the importance of the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol. The judgment was authored by Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

On March 11, 1983, police discovered the body of an unidentified married woman near the Ambalgisan Railway Station in West Bengal. The woman appeared to have been murdered with a sharp weapon. Investigations revealed that the appellant, Nikhil Chandra Mondal, his wife (the deceased), and their son had attended a fair in Lavpur Gram Panchayat. After the fair, the wife was reported missing. During the investigation, it was alleged that Nikhil Chandra Mondal 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 (a type of knife) at the spot where her body was found.

A charge sheet was filed against Nikhil Chandra Mondal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court acquitted the appellant, but the High Court reversed this decision, convicting him. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding the testimonies of the witnesses regarding the extra-judicial confession unreliable. The State appealed this decision to the High Court at Calcutta. The High Court reversed the trial court’s decision, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with punishment for murder. The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra-judicial confession. The Supreme Court referred to the principles governing circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which requires that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The court also discussed the principles of extra-judicial confession as laid down in Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403, which states that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires careful scrutiny and corroboration.

The relevant legal provisions and principles include:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: *“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”*
• Principles governing circumstantial evidence from Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra:
  • The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully established.
  • The facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
  • The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
  • They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
  • There must be a complete chain of evidence not leaving any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.
• Principles governing extra-judicial confessions from Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu:
  • Extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself and has to be examined with greater care and caution.
  • It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
  • It should inspire confidence.
  • It attains greater credibility if supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
  • It should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
  • Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal, which was based on a well-reasoned judgment.
• The testimonies of Manick Pal (PW-10), Pravat Kumar Misra (PW-11), and Kanai Ch. Saha (PW-12) regarding the extra-judicial confession were inconsistent and unreliable.
• The trial court had the benefit of observing the demeanor of the witnesses and rightly disbelieved their testimonies.
• Interference with a finding of acquittal is not warranted unless the finding is perverse or illegal/impossible.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The extra-judicial confession made before PWs 10 to 12 is trustworthy, reliable, and cogent.
• The High Court rightly reversed the trial court’s acquittal, which was based on disbelieving the testimonies of these three witnesses.
• The recovery of blood-stained clothes and the murder weapon corroborates the testimonies of PWs 10 to 12.

The appellant argued that the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility should not have been overturned by the High Court, as the trial court had the advantage of observing their demeanor. The respondent contended that the extra-judicial confession was reliable and corroborated by other evidence.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal based on the extra-judicial confession and the other 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 relied on 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 followed the principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]* regarding circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
• The Court referred to Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]* to highlight the distinction between “may be proved” and “must be proved”, underscoring that the guilt of the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• The Court relied on Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2012) 6 SCC 403]*, stating that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires careful scrutiny and corroboration.
• The Court cited Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCC 471]* to emphasize the double presumption in favor of the accused in an appeal against acquittal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the principle that an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires strong corroboration, which was lacking in this case. The Court also emphasized the importance of the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility and the need for appellate courts to be cautious when overturning acquittals. The Court noted that the trial court had the benefit of observing the demeanor of the witnesses, and its findings should not be disturbed unless they are perverse or illegal.

The Court also highlighted that the recovery of the weapon and clothes was not reliable, as there was no compliance with the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the weapon was recovered from an open place.

The Court’s reasoning focused on the need for a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the importance of upholding the presumption of innocence.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence, but rejected them because the prosecution’s case was primarily based on a weak extra-judicial confession that was not sufficiently corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Court emphasized that the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility should not be easily overturned by an appellate court, especially when the trial court had the benefit of observing the witnesses’ demeanor.

The Court held that the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal. The Supreme Court found that the trial court’s decision was neither perverse nor illegal. The Court emphasized that the prosecution’s case rested primarily on a weak extra-judicial confession, which was not sufficiently corroborated by other evidence. The recovery of the weapon and clothes was also deemed unreliable.

The Court stated, “It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.”

The Court also noted, “Unless such a finding was found perverse, an interference therewith would not be warranted.”

The Court further stated, “We find that the view taken by the trial court could not be said to be either perverse or illegal/impossible to warrant interference.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Extra-judicial confessions are considered weak evidence and require strong corroboration to form the basis of a conviction.
• Trial courts’ assessments of witness credibility, especially when based on demeanor, should not be easily overturned by appellate courts.
• Appellate courts should be cautious when interfering with acquittals, as there is a double presumption in favor of the accused.
• The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• The recovery of evidence must comply with legal requirements, such as Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to be considered reliable.

This judgment reinforces the importance of the presumption of innocence and the need for reliable evidence in criminal cases. It also highlights the limitations of extra-judicial confessions and the importance of a thorough investigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The appeal was allowed.
• The High Court’s judgment convicting the appellant was quashed and set aside.
• The trial court’s judgment acquitting the appellant was affirmed.
• The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an extra-judicial confession, by itself, is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction unless it is corroborated by other reliable evidence. This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and that the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty. The Supreme Court has not changed the previous positions of law but has reiterated the importance of adhering to the existing legal framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction, emphasizing the need for strong corroborating evidence when relying on extra-judicial confessions. The Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, reinforcing the principles of presumption of innocence and the importance of reliable evidence in criminal cases. This judgment serves as a reminder that extra-judicial confessions must be carefully scrutinized and supported by other credible evidence to form the basis of a conviction.