2005 (1) TMI 736 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reverses acquittal, sentences Paltan Mallah to life imprisonment for murder conspiracy.

State of Madhya Pradesh through C.B.I., and Ors. Versus Paltan Mallah and Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh through C.B.I., and Ors. Versus Paltan Mallah and Ors. - 2005 CriLJ 918 Issues Involved:1. Acquittal of accused A-1 to A-8 by the High Court.2. Conviction of accused Paltan Mallah (A-9) and the evidence against him.3. Admissibility and relevance of evidence obtained through alleged illegal search and seizure.4. Validity of extra-judicial confessions.5. Ballistic expert's report and its implications.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Acquittal of Accused A-1 to A-8 by the High Court:The High Court acquitted A-1 to A-8 based on the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy among these accused to murder Shankar Guha Niyogi, relying on motives, recovery of a diary, and other circumstantial evidence. However, the High Court found that the evidence presented, including the diary entries and alleged visits to Nepal for procuring illegal weapons, did not conclusively prove the conspiracy. The court noted that motive alone was insufficient to establish guilt and that the diary entries and other documents did not directly link the accused to the murder. The High Court's decision was based on the principle that in appeals against acquittal, interference is warranted only if there is a perverse appreciation of evidence leading to a miscarriage of justice.2. Conviction of Accused Paltan Mallah (A-9) and the Evidence Against Him:The Supreme Court found substantial evidence against Paltan Mallah, distinguishing his case from the other accused. Evidence included his criminal history, presence in Bhilai during the relevant period, and recoveries based on his confession. The court noted the reliability of witnesses like PW-66, who identified Paltan Mallah in connection with the purchase of a firearm. The High Court had erroneously dismissed this evidence, leading to the Supreme Court's reversal of his acquittal. The Supreme Court sentenced Paltan Mallah to life imprisonment instead of the death penalty, considering the long lapse of time since the incident.3. Admissibility and Relevance of Evidence Obtained Through Alleged Illegal Search and Seizure:The Supreme Court addressed the legality of evidence obtained through searches conducted by PW-125. It held that evidence obtained through illegal search is not per se inadmissible unless it causes serious prejudice to the accused. The court cited precedents like Radha Krishan v. State of U.P. and Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection, affirming that the admissibility of such evidence depends on its relevance and the absence of express statutory or constitutional violations.4. Validity of Extra-Judicial Confessions:The Supreme Court evaluated the extra-judicial confessions made by Paltan Mallah to PW-105 and PW-124. It noted that while extra-judicial confessions are generally corroborative, they hold significant value when supported by other evidence. The court found these confessions reliable and consistent with other evidence, such as the recovery of the motorcycle and the ballistic expert's report. The High Court's dismissal of these confessions was deemed unjustified.5. Ballistic Expert's Report and Its Implications:The Supreme Court upheld the ballistic expert's report, which linked the pellets found in Niyogi's body to the country-made pistol recovered from Paltan Mallah. Despite challenges to the expert's findings, the court found the report credible, supported by detailed laboratory tests and microscopic examinations. The court dismissed the necessity of producing micro-photographs, relying on the expert's convincing testimony.Conclusion:The Supreme Court confirmed the acquittal of A-1 to A-8, finding no sufficient evidence to prove their involvement in the conspiracy. However, it reversed the acquittal of Paltan Mallah (A-9), sentencing him to life imprisonment based on substantial evidence, including his extra-judicial confessions and the ballistic expert's report. The court emphasized the admissibility of evidence obtained through alleged illegal search and the reliability of extra-judicial confessions when corroborated by other evidence.