CHANDRA BONIAversusSTATE OF ASSAM

•                         [2011] 4 S.C.R. 15

                          CHANDRA SONIA                              A
                                   v.
                          STATE OF ASSAM
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2006)
                           MARCH 30, 2011
                                                                     8
           [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 in a different background inasmuch as
       0

    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 ELLATE 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   B
    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       C
    the appellant appeared to be a concocted one.

        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.