TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 2179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....go rigorous imprisonment for one year each and also convicted for the 2018 INSC 677 offence under Section 302 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years each. 3. The judgment passed by the trial Court was subsequently challenged before the High Court. The High Court also confirmed the sentence and conviction passed by the trial Court. 4. In the present case there were as many as five accused. A-5 was acquitted by the trial Court itself. The other two accused A-2 and A-3 had filed Special leave Petition (Criminal) No(s). 2572-2573 of 2009 against the judgment and order of the High Court, which were dismissed by this Court at the time of admission itself. In criminal cases, it is well settled that a dismissal of a SLP in limine, would neither mean that the lower court judgment stands affirmed nor the principle res judicata would be applicable [refer Kunhayammed and Anr. v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587; State of Punjab v. Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, AIR 2012 SC 364]. Therefore, the dismissal of the SLP of the co-accused will not have any effect ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy of a woman lying inside the cabin of the truck. On such information, he went to Aamjharia Valley and found the truck, where he found the dead body of Sita Devi inside the truck, with her hands tied and neck slit, and the bodies of the driver and Khalasi thrown outside. The informant then went to Kuru P.S. to lodge an FIR, but the police of Kuru P.S. did not entertain his information. He then went to Lohardaga to approach the S.P., who was not available, but the reader of the S.P. told him that the FIR had to be lodged in the Police Station in the jurisdiction of which the dead bodies had been recovered. Therefore, the informant lodged the FIR at Chandwa Police Station on 7.12.1999 at 10 A.M., which is the basis of the case. 8. Mr. Annam D.N. Rao, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the accused mainly contended that the trial Court as well as the High Court had convicted the accused by relying upon the extra-judicial confessions made by Mahendra Prasad and Chanchal Bhaskar (A-2 and A-3). Mr. Rao contended that the accused could not be convicted merely on the basis of extra-judicial confessions, relying upon the settled proposition of law that an extra-judicial confess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fession before him. On the other hand, it is the specific deposition of PW-2 that the accused Mahendra confessed before PW-1, and in turn PW-1 told about the same fact to PW-2. This means that the information received by PW-2 from PW-1 about the extra-judicial confession is hearsay, inasmuch as there is no confession made by the accused Mahendra before PW-2 directly. Hence, such hearsay evidence of PW-2 relating to the so-called confession cannot be relied upon. Even otherwise, PW-1, who had allegedly informed PW-2 about the confession allegedly made before him by the accused Mahendra, has turned hostile. Thus, there is no supporting material to corroborate the evidence of PW-2 regarding the extra-judicial confession. 15. However, the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court, probably relying upon the version of PW-2 in paragraphs 29 to 30 of his deposition, concluded that the accused Mahendra did confess before PW-2 directly. Even if we take it that the accused Mahendra did confess before PW-2 directly, the same may not further or better the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as this is the solitary piece of material against the accused Mahendra, and that too in the form ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence as strictly defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, "it is an element which may be taken into consideration by the criminal court and in that sense, it may be described as evidence in a nontechnical way". (Haricharan case [AIR 1964 SC 1184]) 27. This Court in Haricharan case [AIR 1964 SC 1184 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 344] further observed that Section 30 merely enables the court to take the confession into account. It is not obligatory on the court to take the confession into account. This Court reiterated that a confession cannot be treated as substantive evidence against a coaccused. Where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused against another, the proper approach is to consider the other evidence against such an accused and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused, the court turns to the confession with a view to assuring itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. 28. This Court in Haricharan case [AIR 1964 SC 1184 : (1964) 2 Cri LJ 344] clarified that though confession may be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive evidence has also been affirmed by this Court in several other decisions, such as Pakkiriswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, [(1997) 8 SCC 158] Makhan Sigh v. State of Punjab, [(1988) Supp SCC 526] Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, [(2009) 6 SCC 564] and even recently in Satish v. State of Haryana [(2018) 11 SCC 300] 19. Taking into consideration all the facts and position of law, discussed supra, we are of the opinion that the appellants herein cannot be convicted on the basis of only two extrajudicial confessional statements of the co-accused which were not corroborated by any cogent or reliable evidence. Needless to say, that the confessions of A-2 and A-3 made before the police are inadmissible. Now coming to the limited aspect concerning appending weightage to their recovery of rope in furtherance of the statement of A-3, before the Police under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. 20. The law under, Section 27, Indian Evidence Act is well settled now, wherein this court in Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 9 SCC 315, has observed as under: "As the section is alleged to be frequently misused by the police, the courts are required to be vigilant about i....