The Supreme Court was considering an appeal filed by the accused persons convicted in an alleged case of murder.
While overturning the conviction in a case built on circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court held that extrajudicial confessions made at a police station, whether before police officers or others, are not admissible.
The judgment arose from an appeal by the accused, who had been convicted in a purported murder case.
The Division Bench of Justice K. V. Viswanathan and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “One another circumstance, heavily relied upon by the trial court and the High Court are the extra judicial confessions made by A2 to various persons, but all inside the police station. The First Information Report was on the complaint made by PW-18, the wife of the deceased, though the information first supplied was by A2 in the morning, to PW-15, the SHO and PW-17, the Sentry. Both these extra judicial confessions have been made in the police station before the police officers, even according to the prosecution, on which no reliance can be placed. PW-18, the wife of the deceased deposed that it was A2 who revealed to her the murder of her husband, at the police station, which was the testimony of PW-7 also. The extra judicial confessions and the context in which they were made, within the police station cannot at all be relied upon”, it added.
Factual Background
It was alleged that the first accused, a police officer, had borrowed money from the deceased, also a policeman, who was subsequently murdered at the instigation of the former by his wife, brother, and brother-in-law. The deceased, employed as a driver for a Superintendent of Police, had repeatedly demanded repayment of the loan. To resolve the matter, the second accused (the wife) lured the deceased to her home under the pretense of returning the money. The next day, chilli powder was thrown in his face to incapacitate him, after which the accused hacked him to death with two choppers. At sunrise, the wife went to the police station, confessed to the SHO, and disclosed the location of the body in her house. A constable was sent to verify the information, followed by an inquest at her residence, after which the body was transported to the hospital.
The Trial Court found no evidence linking the first accused to the instigation and acquitted him, while the other accused (A2 to A4) were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, upheld the Trial Court’s findings. Aggrieved by this decision, the accused then approached the Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Bench observed that the case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence, as the eyewitnesses—who were reportedly tenants of the building where the crime took place—had turned hostile. According to the prosecution, the deceased policeman was murdered by the wife of another policeman, with assistance from her brother and brother-in-law. Following the incident, the deceased’s wife, upon being informed of the tragedy, reportedly visited the premises along with relatives and friends, many of whom were police officers or their spouses.
Relying on the doctor’s report, which stated that the head injuries were fatal and that all internal and external injuries were ante-mortem, the Bench concluded that the death was homicidal. The Bench explained, “The absence of a motive is not a decisive factor for conviction when there is ocular evidence. While motive can provide an additional link, it is not crucial if the other circumstances form a complete chain. The lack of motive weighs in favor of the accused, as held in Babu v. State of Kerala.”
The Bench noted that no clear motive connected the financial transaction to the crime. The prosecution claimed the deceased was called to the second accused’s house under the pretext of loan repayment, but the wife never asserted that he left home for this reason, nor was there any concrete evidence indicating whether he returned home that evening.
The Bench further held that the extrajudicial confessions made by the second accused to various individuals at the police station could not be relied upon. It clarified that Section 25 of the Evidence Act bars the use of confessions made to a police officer against an accused, while Section 26 prohibits the admissibility of confessions made in police custody unless recorded in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
“The fact that confessions were made by both accused and that a recovery was effected from one of them, A4, leading the police to the location, does not justify treating the recovery as an inculpatory circumstance against A3 or A4, particularly when the confessions were obtained simultaneously from both accused,” the Bench added.
The Bench stated, “Undisputably, the case is one of circumstantial evidence which is treated as proved only when there is a complete chain of circumstances, comprising cogent and reliable material, providing an unbreakable link, leading only to the culpability of the accused and bringing forth the hypothesis only of guilt and not leading to any reasonable doubt as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The motive projected and the crime itself has not at all been proved and there is no circumstance leading to the culpability of the accused. The presence of the dead body in the house of the accused is also under a cloud and in any event, that, with the absence of a proper explanation cannot by itself bring home a conviction.”
Accordingly, the Bench overturned the conviction, acquitted the accused, and allowed the appeal.
