Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has acquitted a murder accused, emphasizing that an extrajudicial confession is a weak form of evidence and cannot be relied upon unless it inspires confidence and is corroborated by other circumstances. The Court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, a conviction can only be sustained when the entire chain of circumstances is complete and conclusively points to the guilt of the accused.

Case Background

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing an appeal filed by Ramu Appa Mahapatar, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his live-in partner, Manda. According to the prosecution, a quarrel occurred between the appellant and the deceased, following which he allegedly assaulted her, leading to her death. The appellant later informed his landlord and the deceased’s relatives about the incident. The Trial Court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence, particularly his extrajudicial confession. The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Weakness of Circumstantial Evidence and Extrajudicial Confession

At the outset, the Supreme Court reiterated that cases based purely on circumstantial evidence require a stringent standard of proof: "The circumstances would not only have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, those would also have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. All these circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence."

The Court noted that the prosecution primarily relied on the accused’s extrajudicial confession before his landlord (PW-1), the deceased’s brother (PW-3), and other witnesses. However, while analyzing the testimonies, the Court found that PW-3 had explicitly stated that the accused was in a "confused state of mind" when he allegedly made the confession. The Court remarked: “From the above, it is evident that not only the extrajudicial confession of the accused lacks credibility as PW-3 is clearly on record stating that the accused was in a confused state of mind when he confessed before him, the testimonies of PW-3 and PW-6 suffer from material omission. Their statements made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are at variance with their evidence in court regarding the confession made by the accused before PW-3.” The Court also pointed out that PW-4 admitted in her cross-examination that she did not directly hear the accused's confession but only learned about it from others, casting further doubt on the prosecution’s claim.

Material Omissions and Lack of Corroborative Evidence

Apart from the weakness of the extrajudicial confession, the Court highlighted the lack of crucial corroborative evidence. It noted that:

1. The accused’s clothes had no blood stains.

2. No blood-stained clothing was recovered from the crime scene.

3. The grinding stone, which was allegedly used as a weapon, was not recovered.

4. No forensic evidence linked the accused to the crime.

Further, the Court found the behavior of the prosecution witnesses unusual. Instead of reacting strongly to the accused’s alleged confession, PW-3, the deceased’s brother, calmly accompanied him back to the crime scene, which the Court found improbable. The Court observed: “Moreover, we find the conduct of the accused to be quite strange; instead of confessing his guilt before the police or any other authority, he first goes to PW-1, the landlord, and tells him about the death of Manda; further telling him that he was on his way to the residence of the brother of Manda (PW-3) to inform him about the development.”

Legal Principles on Extrajudicial Confession

Relying on precedents such as State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 and Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403, the Court reiterated that extrajudicial confessions must be:

1. Made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind.

2. Free from material discrepancies.

3. Corroborated by independent evidence.

4. Credible and capable of inspiring confidence.

The Court emphasized: “It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence.”

Verdict: Acquittal Based on Benefit of Doubt

Considering the lack of credibility in the extrajudicial confession and the absence of corroborative evidence, the Supreme Court ruled that the conviction could not be sustained. While acknowledging that there was a strong suspicion against the accused, the Court stressed that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace concrete proof: “No doubt there is a strong suspicion against the appellant and the needle of suspicion qua the death of Manda points towards him but as is the settled jurisprudence of this country, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of hard evidence.” Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and directed the release of the appellant.

Cause Title: RAMU APPA MAHAPATAR V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2013

Date: February-04-2025

Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

[Read/Download order]