RAM LALversusSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

                        [2018] 12 S.C.R. 857                           857


                            RAM LAL                                    A
                                 v.
               STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2010)
                       OCTOBER 03, 2018                                B
      [R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
       Evidence – Extra-judicial confession – Evidentiary value of
– Appellant-peon with the Bank was assigned the job of Cash Clerk
– His job was to receive money from the account holders for
                                                                       C
depositing in their Saving Bank accounts – However, he used to
make entries in their pass books but, would not account money in
the account books of the bank nor did he pass it to the cashier and
thus, caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of Rs.38,500/- –
Appellant convicted by Trial Court as also by the High Court –
Plea of appellant that he did not voluntarily make any confession      D
statement and the same could not have been made the basis for
conviction – Held: Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of
evidence and the Court must ensure that the same inspires confidence
and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence – If the Court is
satisfied that the confession is voluntary, conviction can be based
                                                                       E
upon the same – Mere allegation of threat or inducement is not
enough – In the present case, the trial court as well as the High
Court concurrently held that the confession statements were
voluntarily made and that the same can form the basis for conviction
– No ground warranting interference with the said concurrent
findings – Conviction of the appellant u/s.13(1)(c) r/w s.13(2),       F
1988 Act and sentence of imprisonment of two years is confirmed –
Conviction u/ss.477-A and 409, IPC is also confirmed – However,
since the occurrence was of the year 1992-94, considering the
passage of time and the facts and circumstances of the case, the
sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellant u/s.409, IPC is
                                                                       G
reduced from five to three years – Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 – ss.13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) – Penal Code, 1860 –
ss.409 and 477-A.


                                                                       H
                                 857
858            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A           Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
            HELD: 1.1 Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of
      evidence and the court must ensure that the same inspires
      confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
      In order to accept extra-judicial confession, it must be voluntary
B     and must inspire confidence. If the Court is satisfied that the
      extra-judicial confession is voluntary, it can be acted upon to base
      the conviction. It is well settled that conviction can be based on
      a voluntarily confession but the rule of prudence requires that
      wherever possible it should be corroborated by independent
      evidence. Extra-judicial confession of accused need not in all cases
C     be corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that each
      and every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be
      separately and independently corroborated. [Paras 13, 14]
      [864-B-C; 865-E-F]
             1.2 If the court is satisfied that the confession is voluntary,
D     the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of Prudence
      does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in
      the confession with regard to the participation of the accused
      must be separately and independently corroborated. In the case
      at hand, as pointed out by the trial court as well as by the High
E     Court, PW-2 and PW-3 were the senior officers of the bank and
      when they reached the bank for inspection, the accused submitted
      his confessional statement (Ex.-PW-2/A). Likewise, in the enquiry
      conducted by PW-3, the accused had given confession statement
      (Ex.-PW-3/A). Mere allegation of threat or inducement is not
      enough; in the court’s opinion, such inducement must be
F     sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused
      that by so confessing, he would get an advantage. As pointed out
      by the trial court and the High Court, though the confession
      statement has been initially made in the presence of PW-3 and
      one ‘MPS’ by the appellant, no question was put to PW-3 that
G     extra-judicial confession (Ex.-PW3/A) was an outcome of any
      threat, inducement or allurement. The statement which runs to
      eleven sheets has been held to be made by the appellant
      voluntarily. Likewise, confession statement (Ex.-PW-2/A) made
      before PW-2 was in the handwriting of the appellant made in the
      presence of PW-2 and the then Assistant Chief Officer
H
        RAM LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                           859


(Inspection). Here again, it was not suggested to PW-2 that            A
Ex.-PW-2/A was outcome of some threat or pressure. The trial
court as well as the High Court concurrently held that the
confession statements (Ex.-PW-3/A and PW-2/A) were voluntarily
made and that the same can form the basis for conviction. There
is no good ground warranting interference with the said
                                                                       B
concurrent findings. [Paras 15, 16] [865-G, H; 866-A-E]
      1.3 The conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(c)
read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and sentence of imprisonment of two years is confirmed. The
conviction under Sections 477-A IPC and 409 IPC is confirmed.
The occurrence was of the year 1992-94. Considering the passage        C
of time and the facts and circumstance of the case, the sentence
of imprisonment imposed on the appellant under Section 409 IPC
is reduced to three years. [Paras 17, 18] [866-F-G]
      Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu
      (2012) 6 SCC 403 : [2012] 4 SCR 366 – relied on.                 D

      Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC
      341 : [2007] 7 SCR 983 ; Madan Gopal Kakkad v.
      Naval Dubey and Another (1992) 3 SCC 204 :
      [1992] 2 SCR 921 ; Piara Singh and Others v. State of
      Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 452 : [1978] 1 SCR 597 –                     E
      referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
      [2007] 7 SCR 983           referred to          Para 12
      [2012] 4 SCR 366           relied on            Para 13          F
      [1992] 2 SCR 921           referred to          Para 14
      [1978] 1 SCR 597           referred to          Para 14
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 576 of 2010.                                                       G
      From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2008 of the High Court
of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 710 of 2000
                            WITH
      Criminal Appeal Nos.577 and 578 of 2010.
                                                                       H
860            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A           S. Hari Haran, Vikash Singh, Ejaz Maqbool, Amit Singh Chauhan,
      Advs. for the Appellant.
            Abhinav Mukerji, AAG, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Purnima Krishna,
      Advs. for the Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
            R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the judgment
      dated 22.12.2008 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at
      Shimla in Criminal Appeal Nos. 710-712 of 2000 in and by which the
      High Court affirmed the judgment passed by the trial court thereby
      affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(C) read
C     with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under
      Sections 409 and 477-A IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed
      upon him.
             2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that accused was
      employed as a Peon in the United Commercial Bank in January 1987.
D     He was assigned the job of the Clerk as there was a shortage of clerical
      staff in the bank and his job was of manning Saving Bank accounts
      counter. His job was to receive money from the account holders for
      deposit in Saving Bank accounts. He used to make entries in their pass
      books in his own hand but would not account money in the account
E     books of the bank nor did he pass it to the cashier. It is alleged that
      neither the appellant filled the pay-in-slips nor was any deposit made in
      the scroll, daily case receipt book and the cash payment book maintained
      by the cashier and he used to pocket that money. When the depositors
      approached him for withdrawals of money, he would make fake credit
      entries in the ledger accounts and fill in the withdrawal slips and submit
F     the same to the officer concerned for payment. The Passing Officer
      misled by the fake credit entry would allow the withdrawals. This way,
      the appellant caused wrongful loss to the bank to the tune of
      Rs.38,500/- during the year 1994. When the fraud came to light, a
      Committee of two officers namely, R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) and M.P. Sethi
G     was deputed to hold a preliminary enquiry and the Committee noticed
      bungling of accounts by the appellant. After that, Enquiry Committee
      recommended thorough investigation in the matter. After the preliminary
      enquiry, FIR was registered against the appellant under Sections 409,
      468, 471, 477-A IPC and under Section 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2)
      of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act, 1988). After
H     investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted for the said offences.
         RAM LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                                 861
                    [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

        3. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined        A
thirteen witnesses and produced documentary evidence. Upon
consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court held
that the appellant in his capacity as a public servant, had misappropriated
the money entrusted to him, in discharge of his duty, as a public servant.
The trial court convicted him for the offences under Section 13(1)(c)
                                                                              B
read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 477-A IPC for
falsification of accounts with intent to defraud the Bank and he was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years
along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. For the offence under Section 409 IPC,
the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and all the sentences were     C
directed to run concurrently. The appellant was, however, acquitted for
the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC for the charge of forgery
by holding that the opinion expert is not precise. Being aggrieved by the
conviction, the appellant preferred the appeal before the High Court
which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
                                                                              D
       4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant
was working as Peon in the bank and as per bank rules, no clerical job
can be assigned to Peon/sub-staff which was admitted by the officers
of the bank viz. Prem Chand (PW-1), R.K. Soni (PW-2), R.C. Chhabra
(PW-3) and A.K. Gupta (PW-10). It was contended that when any
particular job is assigned to an employee different from his duty, then the   E
Manager is supposed to issue office order/duty sheet whereas in the
present case, no office order/duty sheet was placed on record to establish
that the appellant was assigned the clerical job as alleged. The appellant
mainly assails the confessional statement contending that he did not
voluntarily make any confession statement and the confessional statement      F
could not have been made the basis for conviction.
       5. Learned counsel for the State contended that the appellant
acted with dishonest intention to defraud the Bank by making false credit
and debit entries in the accounts of various account holders thereby
falsifying the account books of the Bank and the courts below rightly         G
convicted the appellant for defrauding the Bank and the impugned
judgment warrants no interference.
      6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused
the impugned judgment and evidence and materials placed on record.
                                                                              H
862             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A            7. In his evidence, A.K. Gupta (PW-10), the then Manager of
      UCO Bank, Nerwa Branch had stated that the appellant who was a
      Peon in the branch was performing the duties of Cash Clerk for shortage
      of staff. He further stated that while the appellant was so working as
      Cash Clerk, the appellant used to receive cash from the depositors for
      depositing the same in their Saving Bank accounts and used to make the
B
      entries in the Cash Book then and there and return the pass book to the
      customers by pocketing the cash so given to him without making any
      credit entry in the ledger. A.K. Gupta (PW-10) further stated that
      generally the pay-in-slip is filled in by the depositor himself; but in order
      to pocket the money, appellant-Ram Lal filled up the pay-in-slip. PW-10
C     further stated that subsequently, when the depositors used to visit the
      Bank for withdrawal of the cash from their Saving Bank accounts,
      appellant-Ram Lal used to make false credit entries in the ledger books
      and after making the debit entries in their accounts, he used to hand over
      the cash to the customers.
D            8. The duty of the Peon was, of course, only to clean up the office
      and other work in the office like moving files etc. There was, of course,
      no office order in writing authorising the appellant to perform the duties
      of Clerical Cadre. But in his evidence, A.K. Gupta (PW-10) has stated
      that though there was no office order authorising the appellant to perform
      the work of Clerical Cadre, he informed the Head Office regarding the
E     appellant for performing the duties of Cash Clerk for want of shortage
      of the staff. In this regard, in his evidence, R.C. Chhabra (PW-3), the
      then Deputy Chief Officer of UCO Bank has stated that the Peon like
      appellant was not authorised to do the work of Clerical Cadre. PW-3
      has also stated that A.K. Gupta (PW-10) and other officials of Nerwa
F     Branch namely S.S. Rana, B.S. Guleria were negligent in their duties by
      so assigning the clerical work to the appellant. PW-3 was however
      quick enough to add that it cannot be said that those officers (A.K.
      Gupta (PW-10), S.S. Rana (PW-11) and B.S. Guleria) were responsible
      for the act of committing fraud. There is no merit in the contention of the
      appellant that in the absence of office order authorising him to perform
G     the clerical work, he cannot be held responsible.
           9. R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) was the then Deputy Chief Officer of
      UCO Bank, Divisional Office, Shimla who inspected UCO Bank, Nerwa
      Branch during the relevant time. R.K. Soni (PW-2) was the Grade-I

H
         RAM LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                                 863
                    [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

Officer at Zonal Office, Shimla who also inspected UCO Bank, Nerwa            A
Branch in the year 1994. R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) stated that the appellant
wrote confession statement in his own hand, in the presence of M.P.
Sethi and signed the same which formed part of his report Ex.-PW-3/A.
Eleven sheets are the tabulated statements in respect of the Saving Bank
accounts, in which fake credit entries had been detected. At the foot of
                                                                              B
these statements, the appellant wrote in his own hand and under his
signature, that he had received the money from the account holders,
named in the statements, for being deposited in their accounts, but instead
of accounting for the same in the respective account books of the bank,
the appellant misappropriated it and later on made fake credit entries
and forged the initials of the Manager.                                       C
       10. After the preliminary enquiry was conducted, the Divisional
Office nominated two senior officers namely, R.K. Soni (PW-2) and
H.O. Aggarwal, who submitted the report consisting of 202 pages, which
has been made part of the investigation report, Ex.-PW-2/A. R.K. Soni
(PW-2) deposed in his evidence that the writings at pages (143) and           D
(144) of report Ex.-PW-2/A, was prepared by the appellant-accused
voluntarily in his own handwriting, in his presence and in the presence of
his co-investigator H.O. Aggarwal and the appellant-accused admitted
having received money from various account holders, for being deposited
in their Saving Bank accounts and having made entries in their pass
books. In his confession statement, the appellant also admitted that he       E
did not account for the money, but misappropriated the same and that
when the account holder visited the bank for the withdrawal of the money,
he used to make fake credit entries in the ledger folio of their accounts
and on the basis of those fake entries, withdrawals used to be made.
       11. Contention of the appellant is that the confession statement of    F
the appellant was not voluntary and PWs 2 and 3 were persons in authority
who have pressurised the appellant to make the confession and therefore,
Ex.-PW-3/A and Ex.-PW-2/A cannot be said to have been made
voluntarily and cannot form the basis for conviction.
      12. Placing reliance upon Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra            G
(2007) 12 SCC 341, it was contended that extra-judicial confession can
only form basis of conviction if it is voluntary and person to whom
confession is made should be unbiased and not inimical to the accused.
Learned counsel also placed reliance upon Madan Gopal Kakkad v.
                                                                              H
864             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     Naval Dubey and another (1992) 3 SCC 204 to contend that extra-
      judicial confession of accused should not have been obtained by coercion,
      promise of favour and should be voluntary in nature acknowledging the
      guilt. Learned counsel submitted that the officers who obtained extra-
      judicial confession of the appellant (Exts.-PW-3/A and PW-2/A) had
      other vested interest to act upon and the appellant being a Peon must
B
      have been allured by the false hope of being absolved from the charges.
             13. Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the
      court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated
      by other prosecution evidence. In order to accept extra-judicial confession,
      it must be voluntary and must inspire confidence. If the court is satisfied
C     that the extra-judicial confession is voluntary, it can be acted upon to
      base the conviction. Considering the admissibility and evidentiary value
      of extra-judicial confession, after referring to various judgments, in
      Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403,
      this court held as under:-
D           “15.1. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (4)
            SCC 259 this Court stated the principle that:
                “10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a
                weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great
                deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is
E               surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes
                doubtful and it loses its importance.”
            15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing
            the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial
            confession, this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003)
F           8 SCC 180 stated the principle that:
                “19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and
                made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court.
                The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The
                value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence,
G               depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been
                made.”
                The Court further expressed the view that:
                “19. … Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction
                can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession
H
         RAM LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                                     865
                    [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

          comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased,            A
          not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of
          whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that
          he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to
          the accused.…”
       15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession,        B
       the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10
       SCC 604 held that:
          “29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession
          can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an
          extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other          C
          material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore
          (1970) 2 SCC 105, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC
          902, Sivakumar v. State By Inspector of Police (2006) 1 SCC
          714 (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and 42), Shiva
          Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
          11 SCC 262 and Mohd. Azad alias Shamin v. State of W.B.                 D
          (2008) 15 SCC 449]”
       14. It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily
confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible it
should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial
confession of accused need not in all cases be corroborated. In Madan             E
Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Another (1992) 3 SCC 204, this
court after referring to Piara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab
(1977) 4 SCC 452 held that the law does not require that the evidence of
an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. The rule
of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned           F
in the confession must be separately and independently corroborated.
       15. As discussed above, if the court is satisfied that if the confession
is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same. Rule of Prudence
does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the
confession with regard to the participation of the accused must be                G
separately and independently corroborated. In the case at hand, as pointed
out by the trial court as well as by the High Court, R.K. Soni (PW-2) and
R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) were the senior officers of the bank and when
they reached the bank for inspection on 23.04.1994, the accused submitted
his confessional statement (Ex.-PW-2/A). Likewise, in the enquiry
                                                                                  H
866            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 12 S.C.R.


A     conducted by R.C. Chhabra (PW-3), the accused had given confession
      statement (Ex.-PW-3/A).
              16. Contention of the appellant is that PWs 2 and 3 being the
      higher officials, it cannot be said that the confession statement of the
      accused has been made voluntarily and it must have been under the
B     inducement or under false promise of favour. Mere allegation of threat
      or inducement is not enough; in the court’s opinion, such inducement
      must be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused
      that by so confessing, he would get an advantage. As pointed out by the
      trial court and the High Court, though the confession statement has been
      initially made in the presence of R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) and M.P. Sethi
C     by the appellant, no question was put to R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) that extra-
      judicial confession (Ex.-PW3/A) was an outcome of any threat,
      inducement or allurement. The statement which runs to eleven sheets
      has been held to be made by the appellant voluntarily. Likewise,
      confession statement (Ex.-PW-2/A) made before R.K. Soni (PW-2)
D     was in the handwriting of the appellant made in the presence of R.K.
      Soni (PW-2) and H.O. Agrawal, the then Assistant Chief Officer
      (Inspection). Here again, it was not suggested to R.K. Soni (PW-2) that
      Ex.-PW-2/A was outcome of some threat or pressure. The trial court
      as well as the High Court concurrently held that the confession statements
      (Ex.-PW-3/A and PW-2/A) were voluntarily made and that the same
E     can form the basis for conviction. We do not find any good ground
      warranting interference with the said concurrent findings.
            17. In so far as the conviction under Section 13(1)(c) read with
      Section 13(2) of PC Act, 1988, the appellant was sentenced to undergo
      rigorous imprisonment for two years. For conviction under Section
F     477-A IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
      for two years. For conviction under Section 409 IPC, the appellant was
      sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The
      occurrence was of the year 1992-94. Considering the passage of time
      and the facts and circumstance of the case, the sentence of imprisonment
G     imposed on the appellant is reduced to three years.
            18. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section
      13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
      1988 and sentence of imprisonment of two years is confirmed. The
      conviction under Sections 477-A IPC and 409 IPC is confirmed and the
H
         RAM LAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH                                     867
                    [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

sentence of imprisonment under Section 409 IPC is reduced to three                A
years. These appeals are accordingly partly allowed. The appellant
shall surrender himself within four weeks from today to serve the
remaining sentence, failing which the appellant shall be taken into custody.


Divya Pandey                                            Appeals partly allowed.
                                                                                  B




                                                                                  C




                                                                                  D




                                                                                  E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H