Chandra Sonia v. State of Assam

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Judgment Date: 2011-03-30
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentences upheld. The appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts, with both sentences to run concurrently; the Amicus Curiae fees fixed at Rs. 7000.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chandra Sonia

Respondents

State of Assam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Praneet Ranjan (AC)
• Ranay Ranjan
• Hemant Kumar Yadav
• Rajesh Mishra

Counsels for Respondents

• Avijit Roy (Corporate Law Group)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Chandra Sonia v. State of Assam concerns an appeal against a double murder conviction. The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murders of Somra Munda and Agnash Munda on 7 October 1990, with two life sentences to run concurrently. The trial court and the Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction, largely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to a neighbour (PW 7) on the date of the murder, together with the recovery of the murder weapon (a dao) at the instance of the accused before the investigating officer (IO). The prosecution’s case also relied on the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court acknowledged that extrajudicial confessions are generally weak evidence and cannot sustain a conviction if relied upon alone. However, in this case the confession to PW 7 occurred in a background suggesting fear of identification; the accused allegedly warned the witness not to disclose information to anyone. The proximity of the murder and the extra-judicial confession to PW 7 speaks to its authenticity. The murder weapon’s recovery at the accused’s instance further supports the prosecution’s case, even though independent witnesses to the recovery were hostile. On a holistic assessment, the Court found the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the appeal.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s. 164

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Extra-judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on such evidence cannot be maintained; corroboration is generally required.
Proximity of the crime to the confession can enhance the reliability of a confession.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt is the standard of proof in criminal cases.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the sole evidence against him is the extra-judicial confession made to PW 7, which is inherently weak and cannot sustain a conviction without corroboration. The defense further alleges police resorted to coercive methods, torturing and pressuring witnesses to produce false testimony, making the case a concoction. With three crucial witnesses either hostile or uninterested in supporting the prosecution, the case rests on the confession and the recovery of the weapon, which do not independently establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Contentions of Respondents

The State argues that while extrajudicial confessions are normally weak, the circumstances here lend credibility: the confession occurred in close temporal proximity to the murder, the accused reportedly warned PW 7 to keep silent, and the 164 Cr.P.C. statement mirrors the confession in nearly identical terms. The dao was recovered at the accused’s instance, and although independent witnesses to the recovery were not supportive, the Investigating Officer’s evidence remains credible. Taken as a whole, the evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt, justifying upholding the conviction and the concurrent life sentences; hence the appeal should be dismissed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A 8 ## [2011] **4** S.C.R. 15 ## CHANDRA SONIA _v._ ## STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2006) MARCH 30, 2011 **[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.]** " _Penal Code, 1860-_ s. _302_ - _Double murder- Conviction_ - _and sentence by the courts below On_ basis _of the extra-_ C _judicial confession made by accused before prosecution witness and recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the accused before Investigating Officer- On appeal, held: Extra-judicial confession_ is _a very weak piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on the_ basis _of such evidence_ o - _cannot be maintained However, in the instant_ case, _the extra-judicial confession_ was _made by accused to the prosecution witness 0 in a different background inasmuch_ as _the accused suspected that he had been identified by the witness and he returned to warn her not to divulge any_ E - _information to anyone Statement of the prosecution witness recorded uls. 164 Cr. P. C_ is _almost in identical terms_ - _The very proximity of the murder and the extra-judicial confession made to the prosecution witness_ shows _that the confession_ is _reliable_ - A/so, _the alleged murder weapon, had been_ F - _recovered at the instance of the accused Though, independent_ witnesses _of the recovery did not support the prosecution, but no reason to doubt the evidence of the Investigating Officer- Thus, prosecution_ case _proved beyond_ - - _reasonable doubt Evidence Extra-judicial confession._ G CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2006. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.8.2001 of the High 15 H 16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R A Court of Gauhati at Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No. 170 of 2000. Praneet Ranjan (A.C.) Rranay Ranjan, Hemant Kr. Yadav, Rajesh Mishra for the Appellant. **B** Avijit Roy Corporate Law Group for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** C This appeal against the conviction has been filed against the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court for a double murder committed on 7th October, 1990 for which the appellant was sentenced for life on two counts, both sentences to run concurrently. D As per the prosecution story, Somra Munda and Agnash Munda, the father and brother of the first informant were murdered during the night of 7th October, 1990 in their house. The First Information Report was lodged by Chukhnu Munda E at Police Station Marian on the 8th October, 1990 alleging that during his absence from the house some persons had murdered his father and younger brother. During the course of the investigation, the police recorded the statement of various witnesses including PW 1 Pradip Das and PW 2 Niran Sonia F (who were both declared hostile), PW 5, the Medical Officer who had conducted the post mortem on the two dead bodies, PW 6 the informant and PW 7 Baloni Bawri, who was a neighbour of the deceased, and to whom the accused had made an extra judicial confession on the date of the murder itself and PW 12 the Investigating Officer who was also a G witness to the recovery of the murder weapon at the instance of the accused. The trial court and the High Court have both noticed that as the solitary eye witness had died and the other two material witnesses PW 1 and PW 2 had been declared hostile, the prosecution story rested exclusively on the H confession made by the accused to PW 7 and the factum of CHANDRA BONIA _v._ STATE OF ASSAM 17 • recovery of the dao at the instance of the accused before PW A 12 the Investigating Officer. At the hearing before us today, Mr. Praneet Ranjan, the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appellant has argued that the only evidence against the accused was the extra judicial confession made before PW 7 and as this evidence was a weak kind of evidence, the conviction of the appellant could not be maintained. He has further submitted that police had, in fact, used third degree methods and tortured and threatened the witnesses to give false evidence and as such the case against the appellant appeared to be a concocted one. B C Mr. Avijit Roy, the learned counsel for the State of Assam, however, has supported the judgments of the courts below. It is true that an extra judicial confession is a very weak o piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on the basis of such evidence cannot be maintained. The confession, made by the appellant to PW 7, however, falls in a different category. A reading of the evidence of PW 7 clearly reveals that her house was about 100 yards away from the murder site and that when E she had come out from her house to throw the starch out of the cooked rice, she had seen three persons running away from the house of the deceased and that a little later, the appellant - accused had come to her house carrying a dao and addressing her as Didi had told her that he had murdered two F persons and cautioned her not to disclose this fact to anybody otherwise she too would be killed, and on account of fear, she and her husband had left their residence and shifted to some other place, We also see that the statement of PW 7 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is almost in identical terms. It is therefore evident that the extra judicial confession was made G in a different background in as much that as the appellant suspected that he had been identified by the witness he had returned to warn her not to divulge any information to anyone .. The very proximity of the murder and the extra judicial confession made to PW 7 speaks volumes as to its authenticity. H 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. A We also see from the record that the alleged murder weapon, a dao, had been recovered at the instance of the appellant. It is true that the independent witnesses of the recovery have not supported the prosecution, but we have no reason to doubt the evidence of PW 12 on this score. 8 On an overall assessment of the facts the prosecution story is proved beyond reasonable doubt. We thus find no merit in this appeal and the same is C dismissed. The fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs. 7000/-. N.J. Appeal dismissed.