State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nisar

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
D. K. Jain
Judgment Date: 2007-06-04
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld. No interference with the High Court’s acquittal; the prosecution’s circumstantial case did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed; acquittal upheld

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Madhya Pradesh

Respondents

Nisar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Vijay Goel
• Meru Sagar Samantrary
• Vairagya Vardhan

Counsels for Respondents

• Vidya Dhar Gaur

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two graziers Kandhai and Chherkoo did not return home; a missing he-goat and a furtive night's shelter at Barelal's house link the accused, Nisar, to the events. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: the accused allegedly confessed to killing Kandhai and Chherkoo; subsequent recovery of Kandhai’s body and later Chherkoo’s body at the accused’s instance; and a weapon (axe) bearing human blood. The trial court convicted under Section 302 IPC, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court acquitted, noting fatal flaws: the FIR lodged next morning did not mention any extrajudicial confession, and the blood grouping on the axe was not performed. It observed the absence of a direct eye-witness and found the evidence tenuous, especially since the confession’s credibility was not established and the link to the crimes was not conclusively proven by the record. The State challenged the acquittal in this Supreme Court appeal, arguing the extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the weapon at the instance of the accused were legally valid corroborative factors in a circumstantial case, deserving conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s acquittal and declining to interfere, concluding the prosecution’s circumstantial case did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The result is that the acquittal stands and the State’s conviction attempt failed on evidentiary grounds.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that, although the extrajudicial confession was not mentioned in the FIR, it forms part of the chain of evidence when coupled with the recovery of the two bodies and the weapon. It argues that the confession, together with the discovery of both deceaseds’ bodies close to the scene and the weapon stained with human blood, builds a strong circumstantial case for conviction under Section 302 IPC. The absence of eye-witness testimony is not fatal when the circumstances create a coherent and cogent chain pointing to the accused. The lack of blood grouping on the axe is not dispositive if other circumstantial links are robust enough; the High Court erred in discarding the evidentiary value of the confession and the recovered weapon and in relying excessively on the missing FIR details to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent contends that extrajudicial confessions require reliable corroboration and are not to be admitted as the sole basis for conviction, especially when not mentioned in the FIR. The accused was a casual passer-by who happened to stay at Barelal’s house; the confession is not supported by independent, corroborative evidence and the absence of blood grouping on the axe undermines the inference of murder by the accused; the lack of an eye-witness further weakens the case; given these gaps, the High Court’s acquittal was correct and the Supreme Court should not disturb it.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A ## STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. ## _v._ ## NI SAR ## JUNE 4, 2007 ## B [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] ## _Penal Code, 1860:_ _Section 302-Double murder-Circumstantial evidence-Accused_ C _convicted on the basis of his extra-judicial confession and recovery of dead body and weapon of murder at his instance-Blood group on blood found on axe not ascertained-FIR recorded much after extra-judicial confession not mentioning anything about it-Held : High Court rightly set aside conviction recorded by trial court-Evidence-Circumstantial evidence._ ## D Respondent was prosecuted for double murder. The prosecution case was that two graziers, 'K' and 'C' did not reach home in the evening. A hegoat was also missing. The search party located the missing he-goat in the house of PW-4 in another village which had been brought there by the accused who had sought shelter for the night there. On being questioned, the accused E admitted having killed 'K' and 'C'. Next morning body of deceased 'K' was recovered and at the instance of the accused body of 'C' was also re.covered during the course of the day. The trial court convicted the accused of the offence charged. In the appeal before the High Court, it was contended for the accused that there was no eye-witness of the incident; that the so-called F extra-judicial confession had no foundation and that blood grouping of the blood found on the axe recovered was not done. The High Court having acquitted the accused, the State filed the instant appeal. ## Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The First Information Report was lodged much after the soG called extra judicial confession was made. Evidence on record show~- that the body of deceased 'K' was lying exposed in the jungle and .his lathi and 'Khomari' were lying close-by. In the FIR, there was no reference to the socalled confession by the accused. Informant's explanation that he may have forgotten to disclose this fact to the police while lodging the FIR, is totally H 926 ## H / 927 STATEOFMADHYAPRADESHv. NISAR[PASAYAT,J.) improbable and wholly unacceptable. If, in fact, there was any confession as claimed, that would have been the first thing to be mentioned and not that there was suspicion of the accused being the assailant. (Para SJ (929-A-BJ 1.2. PW-12 had admitted that the body of deceased 'C' was lying about 100 paces from the dead body of'K'. The High Court rightly noticed that no B disclosure was necessary for locating the dead body, the axe and the 'Khomari' were also lying close-by and even a casual search would have revealed the dead bodies and the articles. The Chemical Examiner in his report had found that the axe was stained with human blood. Curiously, the blood group was not ascertained. It was, therefore, not possible to conclude that the axe was C used for killing the two deceased persons. [Para 8) (929-C-Dj 1.3. In view of the nature of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the High Court was perfectly justified in finding the p:-osecution version vulnerable, and the evidence scanty to fasten the guilt on the accused in a case where the prosecution version rests on circumstantial evidence. D [Para 9) (929-E) CRIMINAL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 584 of 200 l. From the Final Judgment and Order dated 29.10.1999 of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in Crl. A. No. 206 of 1989. E Vijay Goel, Meru Sagar Samantrary and Vairagya Vardhan (for C.D. Singh) for the Appellant. Vidya Dhar Gaur for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .. DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court by a learned Additional Sessions Judge in ST. No.44of1988 and directed acquittal of the respondent. G ' Accused faced trial for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'Code'). 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The case, as presented at the trial was that Kandhai and Chherkoo did H . 928 [2007] 7 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A not return home in the evening. A he-goat of Sitaram was also missing. The search part)' located the he-goat in village Karhitola in the house of Barela! (PW-4). Accused Nisar had sought shelter for the night at Barelal's house and had brought the he-goat with him. On being questioned, the accused admitted having killed Kandhai because the latter had abused him when he was taking B away the he-goat. He also confessed the murder of Chherkoo whose body was recovered at his instance. 3. The first information report (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Bhaiyalal next morning, after recovery of the body of Kandhai. The body of Chherkoo was recovered during the course of the day on the information given by accused C Nisar during investigation. The usual investigation followed, and in due course the accused was tried for the offences as already described above. The trial resulted in conviction on all heads of charge. 4. Accused challenged the conviction before the High Court. ## D 5. Before the High Court, it was urged that the conviction was based on surmises and conjectures. The so called extra judicial confession has no foundation. The accused, who was a casual passer-by and taken shelter in the house of Barela! in the night has been made a scapegoat for the blind murder of the two graziers. E Learned counsel for the State submitted that the Trial Court has analysed the evidence and after drawing proper inference, has found the accused guilty. 6. The High Court found that there was no eye-witness to the incident. Two factors which weighed with the Trial Court were the so-called recovery F of an axe and the extra judicial confession. It was noticed by the High Court that there was no reference to the extra judicial confession in the FIR and though blood was stated to have been found on the axe recovered, the blood grouping was not done. Accordingly, trial Court's judgment was set aside and acquittal was directed. G 7. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the extra judicial confession had been rightly relied upon by the Trial Court and the High Court should not have discarded the evidentiary value of the extra judicial confession. Similarly, the axe was recovered at the instance of the accused and, therefore, the High Court's conclusions are erroneous. H 929 STATEOFMADHYAPRADESHv. NISAR[PASAYAT.J.) --1 8. It is to be noted that the First lnfonnation Report was lodged much A after the so-called extra judicial confession was made. Evidence on record shows that the body of Kandhai was lying exposed in the jungle and his lathi and Khomari were lying close-by. In the FIR (Exh P-1 ), there was no reference to the so-called confession by the accused. Infonnant Bhaiyalal's explanation that he may have forgotten to disclose this fact to the police while lodging B the FIR, is totally improbable and wholly unacceptable. If in fact there was any confession as claimed that would have been the first thing to be mentioned and not that there was suspicion of the accused being the assailant. Raghvendra Singh Baghel, PW-12 had admitted that the body of Chherkoo was lying about 100 paces from the dead body of Kandhai. The High Court rightly noticed that no disclosure was necessary for locating the dead body. C The axe and the khomari were also lying close-by and even a casual search would have revealed the dead bodies and the articles. The Chemical Examiner in his report Ex.P-37 had found that the axe was stained with human blood. Curiously, the blood group was not ascertained. It was, therefore, not possible to conclude that the axe was used for killing the two deceased persons. D 9. Above being the nature of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the High Court was perfectly justified in finding the prosecution version vulnerable, and the evidence scanty to fasten the guilt on the accused in a case where the prosecution version rests on circumstantial evidence. 10. There is no scope for interference in this appeal which is, accordingly, E dismissed. RP. Appeal dismissed. "[\ ]