Co-accused confession and incomplete circumstantial chain cannot sustain conspiracy conviction without independent substantive evidence.
A co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence and can only corroborate independent proof already establishing the charge. Where the alleged judicial confession was excluded, the extra-judicial confession was found involuntary, and the remaining circumstantial material did not complete an unbroken chain linking the accused to the murder, conviction for conspiracy could not stand; the second appellant was acquitted on benefit of doubt. By contrast, where direct evidence and a confession supported the first appellant's case, and no basis existed to disturb the limited sentence challenge, no interference was warranted and his conviction and sentence were maintained.
Issues: (i) whether the conviction of the second appellant for conspiracy to commit murder could be sustained on the basis of the alleged judicial confession, extra-judicial confession, motive and other circumstantial links; (ii) whether any interference was called for in the conviction and sentence of the first appellant.
Issue (i): whether the conviction of the second appellant for conspiracy to commit murder could be sustained on the basis of the alleged judicial confession, extra-judicial confession, motive and other circumstantial links.
Analysis: The judicial confession was excluded from consideration. The alleged extra-judicial confession was made immediately after the maker had been apprehended and assaulted, and was therefore not voluntary or natural. A confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and can only lend assurance to other substantive evidence. The remaining material, including alleged jail meetings, alleged proximity between the accused, and motive arising from detention and demolition of the ashram, did not complete a chain of circumstances linking the second appellant to the murder. The evidence relied upon for the jail meeting was also found infirm, and adverse inference arose from non-examination of an important witness.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt, and the second appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. His conviction could not be sustained and he was acquitted.
Issue (ii): whether any interference was called for in the conviction and sentence of the first appellant.
Analysis: The first appellant had direct evidence against him and had also made a confession. The special leave in his case was limited to the question of sentence, and no ground was made out to take a different view from that adopted by the High Court.
Conclusion: No interference was called for in the conviction or sentence of the first appellant, and his appeal was dismissed.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only for the second appellant, who was acquitted, while the first appellant's conviction and sentence were maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: A co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence against another accused and can be used only as corroborative assurance after independent substantive evidence has first established the charge; where circumstantial evidence does not complete an unbroken chain, conviction for conspiracy cannot stand.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
