PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIAversusSTATE OF BIHAR

                        [2023] 2 S.C.R. 875                             875


                 PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIA                                  A
                                 v.
                        STATE OF BIHAR
                (Criminal Appeal No. 2230 of 2010)
                         MARCH 14, 2023                                 B
        [ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
      Criminal Law – Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession –
Conviction based on, when not justified – Appellant was convicted
for offences punishable u/s.302 r/w 34 and s.201, IPC based on
                                                                        C
extra-judicial confession – Held: Case of the prosecution was that
the appellant had confessed to PW-1 to PW-9 – However, PW1 to
PW6 including the complainant himself whose son was killed did
not support prosecution – PW7 to PW9, the only material prosecution
witnesses were not consistent about the place at which the alleged
confession was made – Even after the alleged extra-judicial             D
confession of committing murder was made by the appellant before
them, they did not report to the police – As per the prosecution they
accompanied the appellant to the field where dead bodies were found
buried, without informing the police – This conduct is unusual and
unnatural – There is nothing on record to show that the relationship
                                                                        E
between the appellant and these three witnesses was such that the
appellant had implicit faith in these three witnesses and, therefore,
he confided with them – Prosecution's case about extra-judicial
confession does not inspire confidence at all – Moreover, there are
no other circumstances brought on record which could support or
corroborate the prosecution case – Evidence in form of the extra-       F
judicial confession of the appellant is discarded – Conviction of
the appellant not sustainable – Impugned judgments set aside –
Appellant acquitted – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 & 201.
      Evidence – Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary value of
– Held: Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence –         G
However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial
confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary
and truthful – It should be free of any inducement – Evidentiary
value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is
made – Generally, a person would confide about a crime committed
                                                                        H
                                875
876            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith –
      Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the
      confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made –
      As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required – However, if an
      extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on
      record, it acquires more credibility.
B
            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
      2230 of 2010.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2007 of the High Court
      of Patna in CRLA No. 237 of 2002.
C           Gaurav Agrawal, Saurav Sunil, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Abhinav Mukerji, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Mrs. Bihu Sharma,
      Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Advs. for the Repondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D           ABHAY S. OKA, J.
            FACTUAL BACKGROUND
             1. The appellant who is accused no.1 was prosecuted along with
      four others for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with
      Section 34 as well as Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
E     ‘IPC’). The appellant has been convicted for both offences. For the
      offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, he has been
      sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The High Court confirmed the
      conviction of the appellant, whereas the remaining four accused were
      acquitted.
F            2. First informant is one Lakhi Prasad Chourasia (PW-5). First
      Information Report (FIR) was registered on 20 th June 1989. The
      statement of the first informant on the basis of which the FIR was
      registered notes that it has been recorded in the presence of Radhey
      Prasad Mandal (PW-1); Kisan Lal Mandal (PW-4); Satya Narain Mandal
G     (PW-6); and Mohammad Tamijuddin (PW-7). It is alleged that on 10th
      June 1989, PW-5 had lodged a missing report. The missing report was in
      respect of his son Kamlesh and nephew Bulla, son of one Hira Chaurasia
      (PW-9). They were missing from 02nd June 1989. PW-5 stated that at
      about 02:00 p.m. on 20th June 1989, he received a secret information
      that both the boys had been murdered by the present appellant in
H
      PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIA v. STATE OF BIHAR                                 877
                [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

association with others. Therefore, he along with the persons mentioned       A
above went to the house of the appellant and made inquiries. Though
initially, the appellant denied, after some persuasion, he admitted in
presence of the aforesaid persons that he and four others (co-accused)
had killed both the boys by strangulating them and had concealed their
bodies in the field of one Bhagirath at Nakki Bari. PW-5 along with the
                                                                              B
appellant and others went to the said field. The appellant removed the
soil and both dead bodies were found. Thereafter, he came to the police
station and lodged a complaint.
       3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. PW-1 Radhey Prasad
Mandal; PW-2 Jagdish Prasad Chourasia; PW-3 Shobha Lal Mandal;
PW-4 Kisan Lal Mandal; PW-5 the complainant himself; and PW-6 Satya           C
Narain Mandal were declared hostile. According to the prosecution case,
the appellant had made a confession in presence of these witnesses.
PW-7 Md. Tamijuddin; PW-8 Suchai Mandal and PW-9 Hira Lal
Chourasia supported the prosecution case and deposed about the extra-
judicial confession made by the appellant to them. PW-10 is a doctor          D
who performed the autopsy. The Investigation Officer was not examined.
The conviction of the appellant is based on the extra-judicial confession.
Both the Courts have believed the prosecution case regarding the alleged
extra-judicial confession.
       4. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the        E
parties, we have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses
and in particular P.W. nos.7 to 9 and the findings recorded by the courts
below.
   EVIDENTIARY                VALUE       OF     EXTRA-JUDICIAL
CONFESSION                                                                    F
       5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well
settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction
can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that
the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of
any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends         G
on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human
conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by
him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a
person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger
to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the
                                                                              H
878               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A     confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a
      matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial
      confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more
      credibility.
            ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
B            6. As narrated earlier, PW-1 to PW-6 including the complainant
      himself whose son was killed did not support prosecution. The case of
      the prosecution was that the appellant had confessed to PW-1 to PW-9.
      We have carefully analyzed the evidence of P.W. Nos.7, 8 and 9 who
      were the only material prosecution witnesses. Here is the analysis of
C     their evidence:-
            (a)     PW-7 has stated that on 20th June 1989 at about 02:30 p.m.
                    when he along with PW-1 and PW-6 and other persons
                    were talking near the gate of Bhagirath Mandal, PW-5
                    came there and told them that he had received information
D                   that Pawan(appellant) had murdered his son Kamlesh and
                    nephew Bulla and had concealed their dead bodies. The
                    prosecution has made no attempt to investigate into the
                    source of the alleged information received by PW-5.
            (b)     The version of PW-8 Suchai is different. PW-8 Suchai’s
E                   name is not mentioned in the complaint of PW-5. PW-8
                    Suchai claims that on 06th June 1989, he heard the appellant
                    telling two persons that he had murdered two boys and had
                    concealed their dead bodies. It is pertinent to note that
                    though PW-8 had knowledge about the alleged confession
                    made by the appellant on 06th June 1989, he did not complain
F                   to the police. The omission to report to the police is very
                    significant as he was admittedly the uncle of the deceased
                    Bulla. His silence creates more suspicion about the
                    prosecution case.
            (c)     PW-8 stated that he along with others went along with the
G                   appellant to the place where dead bodies were buried. His
                    version is that the appellant made a confession when he
                    along with others was sitting at the gate of Bhagirath. The
                    witness has not stated that PW-1 to PW-9 visited the house
                    of the appellant on 20th June 1989 when the appellant made
                    the extra-judicial confession. Though PW-8 did not say so,
H
PAWAN KUMAR CHOURASIA v. STATE OF BIHAR                                879
          [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]

      PW-9 Hiralal stated that it was PW-8 who took out the            A
      dead bodies after some digging was made by the appellant.
(d)   As far as PW-9 Hiralal is concerned, he is the father of
      Bulla. He has not stated the place at which the extra-judicial
      confession was allegedly made by the appellant. He simply
      stated that 19 days after his son went missing, the appellant    B
      disclosed in his presence to one Bhagirath (not examined
      by the prosecution), PW-1, PW-4 and PW-6 that he had
      murdered both the boys and had concealed their dead bodies
      in the field of Bhagirath. His version is that it was Suchai
      (PW-8) who took out the bodies. However, PW-8 himself
      did not state that he took out the bodies.                       C

(e)   According to the version of PW-7, PW-1 did not inform
      him about any extra-judicial confession made by the appellant
      but PW-1 informed him that he had received the information
      that the appellant had murdered both boys. Out of these
      three witnesses, PW-7 is the only witness who stated that        D
      the appellant made the confession in his own house.
(f)   According to the version of PW-7, in the afternoon of 20th
      June 1989, he was informed by PW-5 that the appellant
      had murdered both the boys. There is no explanation as to
      why PW-7 did not approach the police. This conduct of the        E
      witness is unnatural.
(g)   None of these three witnesses who supported the
      prosecution, have stated that the appellant was either their
      relative or a close acquaintance. In fact, they have not even
      stated that they personally knew the appellant. There is         F
      nothing on record to show that the relationship between the
      appellant and these three witnesses was such that the
      appellant had implicit faith in these three witnesses and,
      therefore, he confided with them.
(h)   Even after the alleged extra-judicial confession of              G
      committing murder was made before them by the appellant,
      PW-7 to PW-9 did not report to the police. The prosecution
      case is that without informing the police, they accompanied
      the appellant to the field of Bhagirath where dead bodies
      were found buried. This conduct of PW-7 to PW-9 is unusual
                                                                       H
880                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 2 S.C.R.


A                    and unnatural. PW-7 to PW-9 are not consistent about the
                     place at which the alleged confession was made.
             (i)     There is no explanation offered by the prosecution for not
                     examining Bhagirath who was also present according to
                     PW-9 when the alleged confession was made. This omission
B                    becomes more significant as the dead bodies were allegedly
                     found in his land.
             CONCLUSION
             7. Hence, the prosecution’s case about extra-judicial confession
      does not inspire confidence at all. Moreover, there are no other
C     circumstances brought on record which could support or corroborate
      the prosecution case. Therefore, in our considered view, the evidence in
      form of the extra-judicial confession of the appellant deserves to be
      discarded. Admittedly, there is no other evidence against the appellant.
      Therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained at all.
D     Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside and the appellant is
      acquitted of the offences alleged against him. The bail bonds of the
      appellant stand cancelled. The appeal is allowed.

      Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Sanika Thakare and Shevali Monga, LCRAs)
E




F




G




H