Holding

The alleged extra‑judicial confession was not credible and the prosecution's version lacked reliability, so the acquittal was upheld.

Summary

The State of Madhya Pradesh charged Basodi with the murder of his nephew under IPC s.302 and the Arms Act s.27, alleging he shot the victim with a muzzle‑loading gun. The trial court convicted Basodi, relying on an alleged extra‑judicial confession made before three witnesses. On appeal, the High Court found the confession implausible, highlighted contradictions in the timeline, noted the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and gave weight to the police officer’s testimony that the accused was not in custody when the FIR was filed. Consequently, the High Court acquitted Basodi. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the extra‑judicial confession and the prosecution’s version, concluding that the confession was not believable and the prosecution’s case lacked credibility. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s acquittal.

Issues considered

Whether the extra‑judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused is admissible and credible.
Whether the prosecution's version of events, including the timing of the FIR and seizure of the weapon, is reliable.
Whether the conviction under IPC s.302 and Arms Act s.27 can be sustained in view of the evidential deficiencies.

Legislation cited

Arms Act, 1959s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302

Subjects

murderextra‑judicial confessioncredibilitydelay in FIRArms Actconvictionacquittalcriminal appeal

Judgment

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A
v.
BASODI

AUGUST 1, 2007

[DR. ARinT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B

Penal Code, 1860-s.302-Conviction by Trial Court-Set aside by
High Court~Appeal against the acquittal-Held: Extra-judicial confession
purportedly made by accused not believable-Prosecution version lacked C
credibility-No explanation offered/or delay in lodging FIR-Acquittal order
passed by High Court consequently upheld-Arms Act, 1959-s.27.

Respondent was charge--sheeted for committing the murder of his
nephew. Respondent had allegedly fired at the deceased from his muzzle
loading gun in the aftermath of a land dispute. On the memorandum of D
Respondent, the muzzle loading gun was purportedly recovered and seiud.
Trial Court disbelieved the claim of recovery of gun, however, held that the
extra judicial confession by Respondent before PWs 1, 3 and 8 was clearly
acceptable and accordingly convicted him under s.302 IPC and s.27 of the
Arms Act, 1959. High Court held that the evidence relating to extra judicial
confession could not be believed and acquitted the Respondent. Hence the E
present appeaL

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. From th~ evidence of PW-8 it appears that the accused
purportedly came and told him about having shot his nephew i.e. the deceased. F
He advised the accused to go to the Kotwar of Almod. Ram Prasad (PW-3) is
the son of Village Kotwar; PW-1 stated that when the accused was being taken
by him, PW-3 and PW-8 to the Police Station, the accused again confessed
having killed the deceased. (Para 61 (756-8)

1.2. According to the ve~ion of PW-3 the distance between the place of G
occurrence and his house is about 10 K.M. and it takes about two hours to
reach his place. He has stated that the accused reached him at about 4.00
p.m. According to the FIR and the version of PW-1 and PW-8, the occurrence
took place ~t 4.00 p.m. and thereafter PW-8 had advised the accused to go to
753 H
754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 8 S.C.R.

A the Kotwar of Almod. This statement, therefore, is contradictory in the sense
that if accused had made any confession before PW-3 at about 4.00 p.m. after
travelling the distance from the house of PW-8, the incidence could not have
taken place at about 4.00 p.m. as claimed by PW-1 and PW-3.
[Para 6) (756-C-D)

B 2. No explanation whatsoever has been offered for the delayed
presentation of the FIR. It was the specific stand of the prosecution that PWs.
1, 3 and 8 had taken the accused with them to the police station where the
gun was seized from the accused. This version gets totally discredited in view
of what the police official (PW-10) stated. According to him, the statement of >- ""
the accused was recorded when he was found after search and the -accused
c was not before him when the FIR was lodged. Nothing more need be stated to
show that the so called extra-judicial confession is a myth and the prosecution
version lacks credibility and has been rightly discarded by the High Court.
The order of acquittal passed by the High Court does not suffer from any
infirmity to warrant interference. [Para 6) [756-E-G)

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ': Criminal Appeal No. 50 of
D
2002.
7-
From the Judgment & Order 13 .07 .1998 of the High Court of M.P .at
Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 700 of 1988 -

Vibha Dutta Makhija for the Appellant.
E
Abinash Coomar for the Respondent.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

DR ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to thejudgment
F rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur ...
~
directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused')
by setting aside the judgment of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Chhindwara who had convicted the accused-respondent for offence punishable.
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and
Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the 'Arms Act'). Life imprisonment
G and five years rigorous imprisonment respectively were awarded. Accused
was -charged for having committed the murder of his nephew Mangalu
(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased').

2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

On 19.8.1987 in the afternoon the deceased had gone to his field
H
STATEOFMADHYAPRADESHv. BASODl[PASAYAT,J.) 755
Kodakodi for ploughing. The respondent who happened to be uncle of A
deceased dissuaded the deceased from ploughing the field. But the deceased
continued to plough the field. The r.:spondent fired at the deceased from his
muzzle loading gun. The deceased after sustaining the injury fell on the
ground. The respondent rushed to his village and narrated about the incident
to Ramprasad (PW-3), Maresha (PW-8) and other villagers that he had shot
the deceased, whereupon the complainant Jangalu (PW-I) and his father B
Bhagan Singh (PW-5), Doulot (PW-6) and Maresha (PW-8) went to the field
and saw the deceased lying injured. When the deceased was being brought
to his house he died on the way. The complainant Jangalu along with others
went to the police station and lodged FIR (Ex.P-10) on 21-8-1987 and
investigation proceeded. On the memorandum of the respondent (Ex.P-4)
muzzle loading gun was recovered and seized vide Ex.P-5. The police also C
seized blood stained clothes of the respondent and sent the seized articles
to the FSL, Sagar for chemical examination and report.

After receipt of the report of the chemical examiner (Ex.P- I I) and
completing the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The cognizance of D
the offence was accordingly taken and the case was committed to the Court
o( sessions for trial.

The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses at the trial.

The defence was of false implication on account of the family feud to
the land dispute. E
The trial Court disbelieved the claim of recovery of gun. It, however,
held that the extra-judicial confession before complainant Jangalu (PW-I),
Ramprasad (PW-3) and Maresha (PW-8) was clearly acceptable and
accordingly convicted the accused as afore-stated.
F
3. Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before the High
Court. Primary stand before the High Court was that the so called extra judicial
confession was not believable. The prosecution version is totally inconsistent.
No explanation has been offered for the delay in lodging the First Information
Report. The High Court found that the evidence relating to extra judicial
confession is clearly unacceptable and accordingly directed acquittal as noted G
above.

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State
submitted that the High Court has not indicated any basis or reason for
discarding the extra judicial confession.
H
1 t
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 8 S.C.R.

A 5. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent supported the judgment
of acquittal.

6. It is to be noted that the occurrence took place on 19.8.1987 at about /·

4.00 p.m. The FIR was lodged on 21.8.1987. From the evidence of PW-8 it
appears that the accused purportedly came and told him about having shot
B his nephew i.e. the deceased. He advised the accused to go to the Kotwar
of Almod. Ram Prasad (PW-3) is the son of Village Kotwar. PW-I also stated
that when the accused was being taken by him, PW-3 and PW-8 to the Police
Station, the accused again confessed having killed the deceased. According
to the version of PW-3 the distance between the place of occurrence and his
house is about I 0 K.M. and it takes about two hours to reach his place. He
C has stated that the accused reached him at about 4.00 p.m. According to the
· FIR and the version of PW- I and PW-8, the occurrence took place at 4.00 p.m.
~and thereafter PW-8 had advised the accused to go to the Kotwar of Almod.
This statement, therefore, is contradictory in the sense that if accused had
made any confession before PW-3 at about 4.00 p.m. after travelling the
. D distance from the house of PW-8, the incidence could not have taken place ·
at about 4.00 p.m. as claimed by PW-I and PW-3. According to PW-3's
evidence the accused was not carrying weapon i.e. the gun with him when
t
he had gone to the house of PW-3. PW-3 claimed that he brought accused
with him to the village where PW-I, PW-8 and others were present. He then
asked the accuse'd to go home and ~ext day they started for the police station.
E Admittedly, the FIR was lodged on 2 I .8.1987 at about 1.00 p.m. No explanation
whatsoever has been offered for the delayed presentation of the FIR. It was
the specific stand of the prosecution that PWs. I, 3 and 8 had taken the
accused with them to the police station where the gun was seized from the
accused. This version gets totally discredited in view of what the police
official (PW- I 0) stated. According to him, the statement of the accused was
F recorded when he was found after search and the accused was not before him
when the FIR was lodged. He alongwith some other persons reached Varud
village, the place of occurrence on 22.8.1987. The accused was found after
covering the village on 24.8.1987. Nothing more need be stated to show that
[
the so called extra-judicial confession is a myth and the prosecution version
lacks credibility a~d has been rightly discarded by the High Court. The order
G cf acquittal passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to
warrant interference.

7. The appeal is accordingly· dismissed.

8.8.B. Appeal dismissed.
H