Can extra-judicial confessions alone be used as an evidence in grievous crime such as murder?

Falgu Mukati | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 26th February 2020

Mohammad Ismail Noormohammad Madana vs The State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal NO.659 OF 2012

Matter

In this case the accused was held guilty under Section 302 of Indian Penial Code, 1860. The deceased Zuber Mohd. Ismail was brother-in-law of the informant (i.e. Makbul Malang Shah). The deceased Zuber Mohd. Ismail was working in imitation jewellery business.  The accused was also having imitation jewellery factory. On 06.02.2011 deceased Zuber had come to the house of the informant.  He requested for two-wheeler (Activa) of informant. the informant gave his scooter to the deceased Zuber, who told him that he would return back within short time.  But deceased Zuber did not return back within reasonable time, hence, the informant called him on cell phone. The deceased Zuber told the informant that the accused had called him to his factory at Pathanwadi and would thus return soon. but deceased Zuber did not return till 11.00 p.m. Hence, the informant gave call to the house of the deceased Zuber. He came to know that deceased Zuber had not returned to his house also. Thus, the informant along with one Jabbar went in search of the deceased. He enquired with the workers of the factory where he was informed that the deceased had not arrived at the factory in the evening. The next day he was called by the father-in-law of the accused, namely Ismail Shah. The father-in-law disclosed that the accused killed Zuber in his factory and locked the shutter door of the factory. Thereafter, the informant, Ismail Shah and others took the accused to Kurar Police Station.  The accused took police to his factory premises where the dead body of deceased Zuber was lying. The Investigating Ofcer prepared inquest panchanama.  He seized the clothes of deceased under panchanama.  The dead body was sent to the postmortem at Bhagwati Hospital, and later the accused was arrested. 

Appellant’s Contention 

• It stated that extra-judicial confession that was considered by the Sessions Judge is a weak one, and should not be relied upon. There are no other circumstances proved on record to corroborate the extra judicial confession.
• It submitted that the prosecution has not led the evidence regarding the scene of offence.
• It submitted that the medical officer has stated that the death was caused due to strangulation, however, no object which can be used to strangulate a person was found. 
• The entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, but the evidence on record does not prove the chain of circumstances pointing out the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
• It submitted that the ligature mark is having a length of 10cm, which means that some object must have been used to strangulate the neck of the deceased. However, no such object was seized. Thus, there is doubt whether death was caused due to strangulation or throttling.
• It relied on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Vijay Shankar vs. State of Haryana and Kala Alias Chandrakal vs. State Through Inspector of Police. In the above case the Apex Court has held that the extra judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material on record and it is weak piece of evidence.  
• It alleged that the charges were not framed properly against the accused. It stated that the learned trial Court has given the time of occurrence of incident as 4.15 hours of 06.02.2011 to 15.50 hours of 07.02.2011.  In fact, the accused disclosed the incident to his father-in-law at about 9.20 a.m., so the incident must have been occurred during the night intervening 06.02.2011 and 07.02.2011.

Respondent’s Contention

• It submitted that the accused had confessed his crime before his father-in-law. There were cordial relations between the accused and his father-in-law, and that that he had confessed his crime in presence of several witnesses. Therefore, the extra judicial confession is proved by the prosecution through the evidence of Ismail Shah and others.
• It stated that the informant had established that the accused was with the deceased on the night of the incident. 
• The place where the dead body of the deceased was found was in possession of the accused, the place of the dead body was informed to the police by the accused, the subsequent conduct of the accused of showing remorse for his acts, all these facts support the extra judicial confessions. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant.

Held 

Thus, the Supreme Court held that the learned trial Court has rightly held the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Court.  The appeal, as such, is devoid of substance and the same is dismissed.