2000 (12) TMI 907 - SC - Indian Laws

Court affirms conviction based on evidence of confession, recovery of incriminating items, and witness testimonies

The court upheld the appellant's conviction based on a voluntary extra-judicial confession, recovery of incriminating articles, and evidence of blood ... Extra-judicial confession as admissible evidence - voluntariness of confession (absence of inducement, threat or promise) - hostile witness and effect of permission to cross-examine under Sections 142/154 Evidence Act - recovery at instance of accused and disclosure statements - forensic evidence and failure to classify origin of blood - evaluation of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstancesExtra-judicial confession as admissible evidence - voluntariness of confession (absence of inducement, threat or promise) - The extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was voluntary and could be relied upon to convict him. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined whether the appellant's confessional statements, made immediately after the occurrence to close relatives, were true, voluntary and not the product of inducement, threat or promise. Applying settled precedent, the Court held that an extra-judicial confession, if believed and shown to be voluntary, may form the basis for conviction even without corroboration. The circumstances - instantaneous confession, absence of allegation of coercion, the persons before whom the confession was made, and consistency of testimony - satisfied the court that the confession was trustworthy. Retraction or the close relationship of witnesses did not, by itself, render the confession inadmissible where voluntariness and credibility were established.The confession was voluntary and reliable and could be acted upon to convict the appellant.Hostile witness and effect of permission to cross-examine under Sections 142/154 Evidence Act - Declaration of a witness as hostile and limited permission to cross-examine did not automatically render his testimony inadmissible or incapable of belief. - HELD THAT: - The Court reviewed the scope and purpose of permitting the party calling a witness to cross-examine him under the Evidence Act, noting that such permission does not amount to an adjudication of the witness's veracity or automatically erase his evidence. The trial court's limited permission to cross-examine PW2 on a narrow post-event detail did not justify treating his entire testimony as washed off the record. The fact-finding courts were entitled to accept that part of the witness's testimony which remained creditworthy after cross-examination, and here the core account of the extra-judicial confession was found to be reliable.PW2's testimony as to the confession remained admissible and creditworthy despite limited cross-examination as a 'hostile' witness.Recovery at instance of accused and disclosure statements - The disclosure statements of the appellant leading to recovery of the weapon (Kassi) and blood-stained chadar were proved and admissible. - HELD THAT: - The Court accepted the prosecution evidence that the appellant made disclosure statements which led to recoveries: the Kassi and the chadar concealed in his house. Independent witnesses and seizure memos supported the recoveries, and the recovery of articles at the accused's instance was corroborated by testimony of multiple witnesses and the investigating officer. The factual matrix showed that but for the disclosure statements the chadar would not have been found, strengthening the probative value of the recoveries.Recoveries made consequent to the appellant's disclosure statements were duly proved and could be relied upon.Forensic evidence and failure to classify origin of blood - evaluation of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances - The serologist's inability to classify the origin of all blood-stains did not vitiate the prosecution case where other circumstances and forensic findings established human blood stains and connected the accused to the crime. - HELD THAT: - The Court considered authorities on the evidentiary value of serological reports where classification is impossible due to disintegration. It held that failure to classify the origin of blood does not automatically negate that the stain was human or strip the recovery of its evidentiary weight, particularly where (i) the serologist and chemical examiner detected human blood on the chadar and other items, (ii) the chadar was recovered at the accused's instance after concealment in his house, and (iii) other corroborative circumstances (confession, recovery of weapon with hair, forensic matching of hair as human) formed a coherent chain connecting the accused to the murder. Non-mention of dimensions of stains in seizure memos or inability to classify blood owing to lapse of time did not create a reasonable doubt in the facts of this case.The incomplete forensic classification did not undermine the proved circumstance of human blood-staining or the overall chain of circumstances linking the appellant to the offence.Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, founded on the appellant's voluntary extra-judicial confession, disclosure statements leading to recoveries, and supporting forensic and circumstantial evidence, were upheld; the appeal is dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Extra-judicial confession.2. Hostile witnesses.3. Recovery of incriminating articles.4. Evidence of blood stains.5. Legal principles on admissibility and reliability of evidence.Detailed Analysis:1. Extra-judicial Confession:The appellant was convicted primarily based on his extra-judicial confession. The court reiterated that an extra-judicial confession, if true and voluntary, can be relied upon for conviction. The confession was made to PWs 2, 5, 6, and 7. Despite PW5 being declared hostile and PW7's testimony being inadmissible due to the appellant's arrest, the court found the testimonies of PWs 2 and 6 reliable. The court emphasized that the confession was made immediately after the occurrence and was not influenced by any coercion, promise, or inducement. The court cited precedents to support the admissibility and probative value of extra-judicial confessions.2. Hostile Witnesses:The court addressed the misconception regarding the effect of declaring a witness hostile. It clarified that the entire testimony of a hostile witness is not rendered unworthy of consideration. The court can still rely on parts of the testimony that are found to be credible. In this case, PW2 was declared hostile only regarding the time of lodging the FIR, but his testimony about the extra-judicial confession was found reliable. The court referenced several judgments to explain the legal position on hostile witnesses, emphasizing that their testimony remains admissible and can be relied upon if found credible.3. Recovery of Incriminating Articles:The appellant's disclosure statements led to the recovery of the weapon (Kassi) and a blood-stained chadar. The court found the recovery process credible and supported by the testimonies of PWs 2, 6, and 12. The court noted that the chadar was concealed in a pitcher in the appellant's house, and its recovery was possible only due to the appellant's disclosure. The court held that the prosecution had proved the recovery of these articles beyond doubt.4. Evidence of Blood Stains:The court addressed the issue of the origin of blood stains. The Serologist and Chemical Examiner found human blood on the chadar but could not determine the origin of blood on the shoes and Kassi due to disintegration over time. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the failure to determine the origin of blood should lead to acquittal. Citing the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, the court held that the failure to detect the origin of blood does not negate the fact that the blood could have been human. The court found the evidence of blood stains on the chadar sufficient to connect the appellant with the crime.5. Legal Principles on Admissibility and Reliability of Evidence:The court discussed the legal principles governing the admissibility and reliability of evidence, particularly extra-judicial confessions and the testimony of hostile witnesses. It emphasized the discretionary power of the court to permit cross-examination of a witness by the party calling him and the need to exercise this discretion judiciously. The court also highlighted the importance of scrutinizing the surrounding circumstances of a confession to ensure its voluntariness and credibility.Conclusion:The court found the appellant guilty based on the voluntary extra-judicial confession, recovery of incriminating articles, and the evidence of blood stains. The testimonies of PWs 2 and 6 were deemed credible, and the hostile status of PW2 did not affect the admissibility of his testimony. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.