Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a murder conviction where the appellant, along with others, was accused of killing a police constable who had chased them for allegedly transporting stolen river sand. The deceased constable had informed his superiors about the sand theft and pursued the accused on a motorcycle during the night of May 6, 2018. His body was discovered the next morning with head injuries near a tractor-trailer. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting him of the Section 148 charge but sustaining the Section 302 conviction. The core legal issues centered on the reliability of the prosecution evidence, including last seen testimony, extra-judicial confessions, and procedural delays in FIR presentation. The appellant's counsel argued that the last seen witness's identification was dubious due to nighttime conditions and delayed disclosure, the extra-judicial confessions were inadmissible as they were made during police custody, and the FIR's belated presentation to the Magistrate lacked justification. The State contended that call records, fingerprints, and recovered items connected the appellant to the crime. The court analyzed that the prosecution's key witnesses had been disbelieved by the High Court, the extra-judicial confessions were unreliable, and the delay in FIR presentation was unexplained. It found the prosecution case inconsistent, as no sand was recovered and no theft case was registered. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, and the appellant, being similarly situated to co-accused who received benefits, deserved acquittal. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Last Seen Evidence - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114 - Witness PW12 claimed to have seen appellant and others being chased by deceased constable at night around 11:00 PM, but identification chances were low due to absence of street lights and witness recognized deceased only by voice - Witness did not disclose this information to police for 17 days, casting doubt on reliability - Held that such evidence without corroboration cannot form basis for conviction (Paras 6, 17). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Extra-Judicial Confession - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Co-accused A2 and A3 allegedly made extra-judicial confession before PW13 on 10.05.2018, but they had been arrested on 08.05.2018 - High Court found confession unreliable as it was made during police custody - Held that such confession is inadmissible and cannot be used against appellant (Paras 7, 12, 17). C) Criminal Law - Procedure - FIR Presentation Delay - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - FIR was presented to Magistrate at 3:30 PM on 07.05.2018, though body was found at 5:30 AM - Prosecution claimed delay due to Magistrate transfer, but no evidence produced to support this - Witnesses admitted FIRs in Section 302 cases should be sent immediately - Held that unexplained delay casts doubt on prosecution case (Paras 8-9, 18). D) Criminal Law - Evidence - Prosecution Case Consistency - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Prosecution claimed deceased chased accused for sand theft, but no sand found in tractor-trailer or nearby - No case registered under Mines and Minerals Act for sand theft - Key witnesses PW2 and PW13 disbelieved by High Court - Held that prosecution case shattered and conviction unsustainable (Paras 10-12, 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge.
Law Points
- Last seen evidence requires corroboration
- extra-judicial confessions made during police custody are inadmissible
- unexplained delay in FIR presentation casts doubt on prosecution case
- benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution evidence is unreliable
