Devi Lal Hansda And Ors vs State Of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

Kailash Prasad Deo, J

Both the Criminal Appeals, arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence as such, they are being heard together and are being

disposed of by this common judgment.

Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Bandana Sinha, assisted by Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate and Mr. Azeemuddin, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

Both the Criminal Appeals, arise out of common judgment of conviction dated 16.08.1996 and order of sentence dated 17.08.1996, passed by 1st

Additional Sessions Judge, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1995 /44 of 1995 whereby these two appellants Devi Lal Hansda and Nuni Hansda

along with two others namely Muniram Soren @ Munia Soren and Kakka Marandi had been held guilty by the learned trial court, under Sections 302,

201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Further the

appellants have been separately sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and they are further

separately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed and punishable under Section 201 IPC. All the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Appellant, Nuni Hansda has preferred Cri. Appeal (D.B). No. 362 of 1996 whereas appellants Devi Lal Hansda, Kakka Marandi and Muniram

Soren @ Munia Soren have jointly preferred Cri. Appeal (D.B.) No. 486 of 1996.

During pendency of the appeal appellants, Kakka Marandi and Muniram Soren @ Munia Soren have died and vide order 24.06.2019 their appeal

stands abated, as such only two appellants in both the separate appeals are before this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellants have been convicted by the learned trial court, on the basis of evidence of P.W.1

(Pagan Hembram), who is the informant of the case and on whose fardbeyan recorded on 16.10.1994 at 12:45 hours, the FIR has been drawn.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prior to that the inquest report was prepared at 10:30 A.M. on 16.10.1994 (Exhibit-5) on the

basis of the information disclosed by chowikidar 3/15, Banshi Ram Murmu on 16.10.1994 at 07:00 A.M. Learned counsel for the appellants has

further submitted that after the dead body was recovered at 10:30 A.M., the fardbeyan of informant was recorded on 12:45 P.M. and on the basis of

which police has registered a case against all four accused persons namely, Devi Lal Hansda, Nuni Hansda, Muniram Soren @ Munia Soren and

Kakka Marandi. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that other witnesses who are named in the FIR by P.W.1 (Pagan

Hembram), Sonat Marandi (not examined in this case), Matal Marandi (P.W.7) has not supported the prosecution case and declared hostile by the

prosecution. Johan Marandi has been examined as P.W.5 and he has also been declared hostile by the prosecution, Atwari Marandi has been

examined as P.W.6, he has been tendered by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that on the basis of a dead

body of alleged Rasik Marandi the entire prosecution case revolves on the basis of the statement of informant, Pagan Hembram (P.W.1). Learned

counsel for the appellants has further submitted that even Pagan Hembram (P.W.1) is not eye-witness to the occurrence rather as per Pagan

Hembram, every thing has been disclosed before him prior to the occurrence and on the date of occurrence by the co-accused, Nuni Hansda, who

came to his house on 12.10.1994 for calling Rasik Marandi, as she was threatened by other accused persons namely, Devi Lal Hansda and Kakka

Marandi asking her to bring him from house on any false pretext of occurrence of rioting in the village as they are inclined to kill Rasik Marandi

because of illicit relationship with a tribal lady, which was not appreciated by all the tribal people. Thereafter as per the informant, Nuni Hansda took

the deceased Rasik Marandi with her and subsequently blood was found by the informant on a Dangal (place). Thereafter Nuni Hansda has

confessed her guilt and on the basis of that she disclosed about the place where the dead body was buried and after getting such information on

13.10.1994 the informant along with other persons went there and saw the dead body. This theory of the prosecution is itself not believable from the

evidence of P.W.9 (Kamta Prasad Singh), investigating officer of the case, who came to the place of occurrence on the instruction of the Officer-In-

Charge, Poraiyahat Police Station along with constable, Muchru Marandi (P.W.10) and prepared the inquest report and two hours thereafter recorded

the fardbeyan of the informant. As such the entire case is a case of no evidence. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that even

the confessional statement of Nuni Hansda is not an extra-judicial confession rather it is before the Sub-Inspector of Police, which has been wrongly

marked as Exhibit-8 in this case. As per the confession of accused, Nuni Hansda, nothing has been disclosed leading to recovery of fact as found by

the investigating officer so as to draw part of such confession admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel for the

appellants has further submitted that it is a case of no evidence and the appellants may be acquitted from the charge and conviction under Sections

302, 201 and 120B of the Indian penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the prosecution has alleged a case of

circumstantial evidence against the appellants though the chain of circumstances is not proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts, so as to hold

the appellants guilty under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that

admittedly there is no eye-witness to the occurrence nor there is any explanation for lodging FIR after five days. The Doctor (P.W.8) who has

conducted the postmortem of the deceased (Exhibit-3), has found that the dead body of the deceased was of five days. Learned counsel for the

appellants has thus, submitted that looking into the entire evidence there is no material against the appellants. As such, the appellants have been

wrongly convicted by the learned trial court, who are entitled for acquittal from the charge and conviction under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the

Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Azeemuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State has vehemently argued the case and submitted that the prosecution

case is based on the information given by the Chowkidar 3/15, namely, Bansi Ram Murmu. The Police officer came to the place of occurrence, where

the dead-body was buried and prepared the inquest report which has been brought on record and marked as Exhibit-5.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the dead-body was identified by son of the deceased, Nunu Marandi (P.W.3), who identified

the dead-body though beheaded from the rest part of the body. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that thereafter Pagan Hembram (P.W.1)

has given his fardbeyan before the Police which was recorded on 16.10.1994 at 12.45 hours on the bank of Dhenukatta river, where the informant

(P.W.1) has stated that on 12.10.1994 (Wednesday) at around 5.00 â€" 6.00 P.M., there was an occurrence of assault between Rasik Marandi and

Muniram Soren @ Munia Soren. Thereafter Rasik Marandi came to his house and disclosed that he was assaulted at Manjhi Tola and the informant

has further stated that on the same day in the night, Nuni Hansda [appellant in Crl Appeal (DB) No.362 of 1996] came to the house of the informant

inquiring about Rasik Marandi and disclosed that in the house of accused Munia, Devi Lal Hansda and Kakka Marandi are taking liquor and have

asked her to bring Rasik Marandi from the house of the informant, Pagan Hembram (P.W.1) on any pretext. They have also said that if he is not

agreeable to come, then bring him to Village- Lathibari bring him out of the house on any pretext. The informant has also alleged that Nuni has also

disclosed that Devi Lal Hansda and Kakka Marandi have said that after she brings Rasik Marandi they shall also join them in the way. Learned

counsel for the State has further submitted that informant in his fardbeyan has also alleged that Nuni Hansda has also disclosed that all the accused

persons have assembled and conspired with wrongful intention having knife and have also given threatening that if she will not bring Rasik Marandi,

they will kill her. As such, under fear she has come to the house to call Rasik Marandi and had a talk with Rasik Marandi and thereafter went along

with Rasik Marandi for Village- Lathibari. Nuni Hansda was not married with Rasik Marandi, but she was living as concubine with him. Muniram

Soren @ Munia Soren and other Santhali persons were not accepting such relationship, as such, they have conspired to kill him. On Thursday

(13.10.1994) when the informant was going, he found a place (Dangal) full of blood. He raised brawl regarding the blood and enquired. On brawl,

Sonat Marandi (not examined), Matal Marandi (P.W.7)- declared hostile, Johan Marandi (P.W.5)- declared hostile along with Atwari Marandi

(P.W.6)- tendered, all residents of Village-Ghaghrabandh, came there and from there they started searching and went to bank of Dhnukatta river and

saw a dead-body under the sand whose one hand was out of the sand and thereafter they identified the dead-body as that of Rasik Marandi whose

head was not there. Informant has further stated that he gave information to the Chowkidar and on the basis of that Nunia Soren and Muni Hansda

were inquired and both have confessed that in the night of Wednesday, Nuni Hansda, Muni Ram Soren @ Munia Soren, Devi Lal Hansda and Kakka

Marandi, all have beheaded the victim by means of knife. Nuni Hansda has disclosed that Munia Soren has assaulted by means of lathi on the left arm

and left leg of Rasik, who fell on the ground and thereafter Munia Soren has pressed his leg and Devi Lal Hansda has chopped of his neck. Kakka

Marandi has climbed over the chest and Nuni Hansda has caught his right hand and mouth and buried the dead-body in the sand. On the basis of such

fardbeyan, the Police has registered First Information Report bearing Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.154 of 1994 dated 16.10.1994 under Sections 302

/201/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code against four named accused persons, Nuni Hansda, Devi Lal Hansda, Kakka Marandi and Muni Ram Soren

@ Munia Soren. During investigation, the Police has recorded confessional statement of Nuni Hansda on 16.10.1994 at 15 hours. After investigation

the case found to be true and submitted charge-sheet against all the four accused persons vide charge-sheet No.1 of 1995 dated 17.01.1995 under

Sections 302, 201, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has thus, submitted that the learned trial court on the basis of the

materials available on record, has taken cognizance of the offence and has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where the charge has been

framed against all the accused persons, named in the First Information Report and were sent up for trial. The charge was framed on 28.06.1995 under

Sections 302, 201, 120B I.P.C. which was read-over and explained to the accused persons in Hindi, to which they have pleaded not guilty and thus,

the trial commenced. Learned counsel for the State has thus, submitted that the prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses. Though most of

the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, but P.W.1 (Pagan Hembram) has supported his fardbeyan and proved the same, which

has been marked as Exhibit-1. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Shiv Lal Hembram (P.W.2), the seizure witness has proved

his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-2. As such, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the accused persons under

Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the State has thus, submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence does not require any interference by this Hon’ble Court, as the dead-body of Rasik Marandi has been identified by Nunu

Marandi (P.W.3), son of the deceased and the confession of Nuni Hansda who has taken the deceased along with her is sufficient to prove the

culpability of the accused persons.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and perused the materials

brought on record. It appears that ten prosecution witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, namely, Pagan Hembram, informant as

P.W.1, Shiv Lal Hembram, a seizure witness as P.W.2, Nunu Marandi, son of the deceased as P.W.3, Shankar Ray as P.W.4, Johan Marandi as

P.W.5, Atwari Marandi as P.W.6, Matal Marandi as P.W.7, Dr. Mantu Kumar Tekriwal who has conducted the post-mortem upon the dead-body of

the deceased and proved the same which has been marked as Exhibit-3, has been examined as P.W.8, Kamta Prasad Singh, Investigating officer of

the case has been examined as P.W.9 and Constable, Muchru Marandi as P.W.10. The fardbeyan has been brought on record which has been proved

and marked as Exhibit-

The signature on the seizure list of Shiv Lal Hembram (P.W.2) has been proved and marked as Exhibit-2, Post-mortem report has been proved and

marked as Exhibit-3, Formal First Information Report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, inquest report has been proved and marked as

Exhibit-5, the dead-body challan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6, the seizure list has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7 and the

confessional statement of the accused, Nuni Hansda has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. From perusal of the records, it appears that after

closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons/appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 1.07.1996, when they have claimed

that they have falsely been implicated in this case, but they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contention. After

hearing the counsel for both the parties and on the basis of the material brought on record, the learned trial court has convicted the appellants and

others under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present two

Criminal Appeals have been preferred before this Court which are being heard and disposed of, by this common judgment. From careful scrutiny of

the material evidence brought on record, it appears that the prosecution has started on the basis of information given by the Chawkidar 3/15, namely,

Banshi Ram Murmu who has not been examined in this case. On the disclosure made by the said Chowkidar, the Police came in motion and the

inquest report of beheaded dead-body of a male has been prepared at the bank of river, Dhenukatta on 16. 10.1994 at 10.30 a.m. and thereafter the

Police has recorded the fardbeyan of P.W.1.

From perusal of the same, it appears that the informant is only witness, who has alleged against the appellants on the basis of alleged disclosure made

by Nuni Hansda [appellant in Cri. Appeal (D.B.) No. 362 of 1996], who came before him on 12.10.1994 in the evening to call Rasik Marandi on the

threat of Devi Lal Hansda and Kakka Marandi though as per the informant, Rasik Marandi went alongwith Nuni Hansda on the same night of

12.10.1994 but thereafter till 16.10.1994 this information was neither given by the informant either to the chowkidar or to the police officer. As per the

evidence of P.W.1 (Pagan Hembram) he saw blood at the place (Dangal) on 13.10.1994 and thereafter raised brawl inviting attention of Santan

Marandi (not examined) Matal Marandi (P.W.7) declared hostile, Johan Marandi (P.W.5) declared hostile and Atwari Marandi (P.W.6) tendered.

Thereafter also he did not inform the police about such blood. It is only when a dead body was recovered by the police from the bank of Dhenukatta

river that the informant has alleged incriminating acts against Nuni Hansda, Devi Lal Hansda, Muniram Soren @ Munia Soren and Kakka Marandi.

At this stage, this Court is considering whether such statement of the informant P.W.1 (Pagan Hembrum) is acceptable or not. The alleged confession

of Nuni Hansda gives any relevancy to the present case or not.

From evidence brought on record, it appears that such confession of the Nuni Hansda cannot be accepted as extra-judicial confession also as the

same has not been disclosed to any body else, who has claimed that such confession has been made before him by Nuni Hansda. It has been

disclosed to any person either of his village or village chowkidar or the police, so as to corroborate that such disclosure has been made by Nuni

Hansda. Admittedly Exhibit-8 is not a confession of Nuni Hansda leading to any recovery of fact, so as to bring it under the ambit of Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act.

From perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution except P.W.1 (Pagan Hembrum), none of the prosecution witnesses namely, Shiv Lal

Hembram (P.W.2), Nunu Marandi (P.W.3), son of the deceased, Shankar Ray (P.W.4), Johan Marandi (P.W.5), Atwari Marandi (P.W.6) and Matal

Marandi (P.W.7) have given any light to the prosecution case. Rather P.W.4 (Shankar Ray), Johan Marandi (P.W.5) and Matal Marandi (P.W.7) are

hostile witnesses and Atwari Marandi (P.W.6) is a tendered witness. Further Shiv Lal Hembram (P.W.2) is the signatory to the seizure list and Nunu

Marandi (P.W.3) son of the deceased is admittedly an hearsay witness. From the evidence of Dr. Mantu Kumar Tekriwal (P.W.8), who has proved

the postmortem report as Exhibit-3, has found the dead body was of five days, in which rigor mortis was absent in all limbs. Maggots were crawling

over the body. Greenish discolouration were present over abdomen, back chest and limbs. The whole body was swollen. Abdomen was greatly

distended. Blisters were present under skin on various parts of the body. Body was decapitated without head and neck. A sharp incised wound was at

the face of neck or upper part of the trunk at the site of the neck having diameter of 5 ½ “. The injury no.1 has been caused by sharp-cut

weapon whereas the injury nos. 2 and 3 i.e. fracture of left radio and ulna and tibia and fibula have been caused by hard and blunt substances, as such

the evidence of P.W.8 (Dr. Mantu Kumar Tekriwal) with respect to Exhibit-3 does not give any light, so far the commission of the offence by these

appellants are concerned. So far the evidence of P.W.9 (Kamta Prasad Singh) investigating officer of the case is concerned, his evidence suggests

that nothing has been brought on record to bring the guilt of the accused persons. He has proved the formal FIR in the handwriting and signature of

Sub-Inspector, R.B. Nanhe, which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-4, inquest report was prepared by him which has been proved and marked

as Exhibit-5, the dead body challan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6, seizure list of blood stained soil, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-

7 and the confessional statement of the accused, Nuni Hansda, has been proved and marked as Exhibit-8. From evidence of P.W.9 (Kamta Prasad

Singh) it appears that he has denied the suggestion that any of the witnesses, Nunu Marandi (P.W.3), Johan Marandi (P.W.5), Atwari Marandi

(P.W.6), Robart Jorje, Shiv Lal Hembram (P.W.2), Shankar Ray (P.W.4) and Marang Kisku have been examined during investigation and disclosed

before him that on Wednesday i.e. on 12.10.1994 at around 06:00 P.M. Rasik Marandi came near the house of accused, Munia Soren, who has

assaulted him by fists and slaps, on the pretext of illicit relationship of Rasik Marandi with one lady. Matal Marandi has not supported the case who

has been examined as P.W.7 and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Other witnesses namely, Shankar Ray (P.W.4), Johan Marandi

(P.W.5) have also been declared hostile by the prosecution and Atwari Marandi (P.W.6) has been tendered by the prosecution. As such, there is no

legal materials on record. P.W.10 constable, (Muchru Marandi) has only proved that he was present at the time of taking out of dead body for

postmortem, which was handed over to the son of the deceased. Nothing has been said by this witness, so as to prove culpability of the accused

persons. From perusal of the materials brought on record, it appears that except the statement of informant, Pagan Hembram (P.W.1) nothing has

been brought on record. The evidence adduced by Pagan Hembram (P.W.1) is not such which are consistent and in consonance to the prosecution

case so as to rely upon the same and hold conviction of the appellants by affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the

learned trial court. From the evidence of P.W.1, it appears that his credential is itself doubtful and he is not trustworthy witness upon whom reliance

can be placed. He has stated in his fardbeyan that he got information of the occurrence prior to the occurrence from Nuni Hansda on 12.10.1994 and

found blood on 13.10.1994 at a place (Dangal) and subsequently called the villagers. They went on to search the dead body and found the dead body

buried in the sand at bank of Dhenukatta river, but he has not put the law in motion rather when the dead body was recovered by the police on the

information given by chowkidar on 16.10.1994 then P.W.1 (Pagan Hembrum) gave his fardbeyan implicating the appellants though not claiming

himself to be eye-witness to the occurrence rather claiming that entire occurrence has been disclosed by convict, Nuni Hansda. On the basis of such

materials learned trial court has convicted the appellants which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The evidence adduced by P.W.1 (Pagan

Hembram) is itself doubtful and his conduct is also doubtful. He is not trustworthy witness on whose evidence reliance can be placed as he has not

informed the occurrence to the chowkidar or the police nor he has informed the police about the blood on 13.10.1994 when he found the blood and

other co-villagers have not supported his version and the prosecution case, who have been examined as P.W.4 (Shankar Ray), P.W.5 (Johan

Marandi) and P.W.7 (Matal Marandi) and have been declared hostile by the prosecution and P.W.6 (Atwari Marandi) has been tendered by the

prosecution. As such, in absence of any legal material against these appellants the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot

sustain in the eyes of law. Apart from above the confession of Nuni Hansda, which has been marked as Exhibit-8 has been examined whether such

confession is an extra-judicial confession or such confession can be relied upon for convicting the appellants. The principles regarding the acceptability

of extra Judicial confession has been laid down in the case of Sahadevan & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403. At paras-14 and 16 it

has been held as under :-

“14. 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. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or

inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a

confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration.

Now, we may examine some judgments of this Court dealing with this aspect.

15.1. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10)

“10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and

caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.â€​

15.2. In Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N. the Court held that: (SCC p. 162, para 8)

“8. … It is well settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any

reliance upon such extra-judicial confession.â€​

15.3. Again in Kavita v. State of T.N. the Court stated the dictum that: (SCC p. 109, para 4)

“4. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak

piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the [witnesses] to whom it is made.â€​

15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, this Court in

State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram stated the principle that: (SCC p. 192, para 19)

“19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to

be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it

has been made.â€​

The Court further expressed the view that: (SCC p. 192, para 19)

“19. … Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth

of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to

indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused.…â€​

15.5. In Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B. the Court, while holding the placing of reliance on extra-judicial confession by the lower courts in absence

of other corroborating material as unjustified, observed: (SCC pp. 265-66, paras 87 & 89)

“87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and

subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the

court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; and (iii) corroboration.

A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption

that confession is a truthful one. Main features of a confession are required to be verified. If it is not done, no conviction can be based only on the sole

basis thereof.â€​

15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan held that: (SCC p. 611, paras 29-30)

“29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial

confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P, Sivakumar

v. State (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and 42), Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B.]

In the present case, the extra-judicial confession by Balwan has been referred to in the judgments of the learned Magistrate and the Special Judge,

and it has been corroborated by the other material on record. We are satisfied that the confession was voluntary and was not the result of inducement,

threat or promise as contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872.â€​

15.7. Dealing with the situation of retraction from the extra-judicial confession made by an accused, the Court in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v.

State of Gujarat held as under: (SCC pp. 772-73, para 53)

“53. It appears therefore, that the appellant has retracted his confession. When an extra-judicial confession is retracted by an accused, there is no

inflexible rule that the court must invariably accept the retraction. But at the same time it is unsafe for the court to rely on the retracted confession,

unless the court on a consideration of the entire evidence comes to a definite conclusion that the retracted confession is true.â€​

15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be

clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can

be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out

whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. and Pancho v. State of Haryana.)

The principles

Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-

judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial

mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the

accused:

(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.

(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

(iii) It should inspire confidence.

(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further

corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved any other fact and in accordance with law.

From perusal of the same it is clear that such confession of the appellant before the police is not an extra-judicial confession as, it appears that after

arrest of accused Nuni Hansda and Muniram Soren the police has recorded the confession of the Nuni Hansda on which Muniram Soren has also put

his thumb impression who is also an accused though his criminal appeal has already been abated. It cannot be accorded sanctity so as to constitute

legal evidence to hold the conviction of the appellants, moreover nothing has been found in pursuance of such disclosure to bring it as admissible under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot sustain in the eyes

of law. As such the judgment of conviction dated 16.08.1996 and order of sentence dated 17.08.1996, passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda,

in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1995 /44 of 1995 is hereby set aside.

The appellants are acquitted from the charge and conviction under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of the IPC.

In the result, both the criminal appeals are allowed.

The appellants, who are on bail, are discharged from liability of their bail bonds.

Let the lower court record be sent along with a copy of this judgment to the court concerned, at once for necessary action.