SHAILENDRA RAJDEV PASVAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.

[2019] 14 S.C.R.

SHAILENDRA RAJDEV PASVAN AND OTHERS

STATE OF GUJARAT ETC.

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 333-334 of 2017)

DECEMBER 13, 2019

[N. V. RAMANA, SANJIV KHANNA AND

KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860 – ss.120-B, 302, 363, 364, 364-A, 365 –CCase based on circumstantial evidence – Approach of the Courts –Case of the prosecution that on 4[th ]Feb. 2001, as per routine, thecomplainant-PW-1 left for work at 8:00 am and returned at 2:00pm for lunch, when he noticed that his son aged about 9 years wasmissing – PW-1 pointed out that initially appellant-accused no.1joined the search but thereafter suddenly vanished – UponDreturning, allegedly, he made an extra-judicial confessionconfessing that he kidnapped PW-1’s son at the behest of accusedno.5, who had animosity with PW-1 and that he made PW-1’s son siton his bicycle and took him to the railway station, where he washanded over to appellant-accused nos.2 & 3 – Trial court acquittedEthe appellants – Set aside by the High Court – On appeal, held:There is no eye witness of the incident and the entire case is basedon circumstantial evidence and theory of last seen together – In acase based on circumstantial evidence, the Courts ought to haveconscientious approach and conviction ought to be recorded onlyin case all the links of the chain are complete pointing to the guiltFof the accused– In the present case, evidence of PW-28 and PW-29,residing near the residence of the PW-1, who were crucial to thecase of prosecution to establish that deceased was last seen withappellant no.-1, is riddled with unexplained contradictions – Thus,the theory of last seen is rejected – Their evidence also becomesGshaky as they knew that PW-1’s son was missing since 4[th]Feb.2001but did not inform PW-1 or the police about the presence and conductof the appellant no.1, despite being aware of the frantic search forPW-1’s son post his disappearance – High Court failed to take intoaccount that there was huge time gap between the point when the

accused and deceased were last seen together and the time of death– Further, PW-1 did not testify that he identified that the dead bodyfound was that of his son – Doubt is also created by the post-mortemreport which records that minimum age of the deceased was around16 years while, PW-1’s son was 9 years of age –There are alsonoticeable contradictions about the circumstances in which theextra-judicial confession of the appellant no.1 was made –Evidenceadduced against the appellants do not form the complete chainconnecting them with the crime – Prosecution failed to prove theguilt beyond doubt – Conviction and sentences of the appellantsset aside –Arms Act – s.21(1)(a) – Indian Explosives Act – ss.3, 5.

Criminal Law – Reversal of acquittal by the appellate court –Presumption of innocence in favour of the accused – Held: Wherean appellate court is reversing trial court’s order of acquittal, itshould give proper weight and consideration to the presumption ofinnocence in favour of the accused, and to the principle that sucha presumption stands “reinforced, reaffirmed, and strengthened bythe trial court”.

Evidence – Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession –Discussed.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1.1 There are material contradictions in thetestimonies of PW-28 and PW-29. The evidence of PW-28 andPW-29 also becomes shaky as both of them knew that Arjun wasmissing since 4th February 2001 but did not inform Paramhansh(PW-1) or the police to the presence and conduct of the AppellantNo. 1, despite residing near the residence of the complainantand being aware of the frantic search for Arjun post hisdisappearance. This renders their testimony unreliable. Thus,the theory of last seen fails and is rejected as feeble anduntrustworthy evidence. PW-1) has not testified that he hadidentified the dead body found in the agricultural farm was that ofhis son. Minimum age of the deceased was recorded around 16years. PW-1’s son on the other hand was 9 years of age. Thus,the entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantialevidence. In case which rests on circumstantial evidence, lawpostulates two fold requirements:- (i) Every link in the chain of

Athe circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accusedmust be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.(ii) All the circumstances must be consistent pointing only towardsthe guilt of the accused. In the case at hand, evidence of PW-28and PW-29, who were crucial to the case of prosecution toestablish that deceased was last seen with Appellant AccusedBno.-1, is riddled with unexplained contradictions and were rightlydis-believed by the trial court. High Court committed an error oflaw in placing reliance upon the evidence of the aforesaid twowitnesses. The High Court also failed to take into account thetime gap between the point when the Accused Appellant No.-1Cand deceased were seen together and when the death is allegedto have occurred. According to the prosecution evidence the twowere seen together on 04.02.2001 at about 10:30 a.m. The deadbody was recovered on 13.02.2001. Post-mortem was conductedon 14.02.2001. Although the possible time of death is not indicated

in the post-mortem report but the Doctor who carried out theDpost-mortem opined in the statement that the time of death canbe estimated to be 36 to 48 hours before the post mortem. Therewas huge time gap between the point when the accused anddeceased were last seen together and the time of death. Thiscrucial fact was miserably over looked by the High Court. ApartEfrom Extra-Judicial Confession by Appellant Accused No.-1 nodirect evidence was adduced by the prosecution to establishinvolvement of the accused in the alleged crime. Entire case ofthe prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence and theoryof last seen together. [Paras 10-12, 15] [278-A, D-G; 279-B-C;E-F; 280-G; 281-A-C]F

1.2 In case based on circumstantial evidence the Courtsought to have conscientious approach and conviction ought tobe recorded only in case all the links of the chain are completepointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link unless connectedtogether to form chain may suggest suspicion but the same inGitself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convictthe accused. Evidence adduced against the appellants do not formthe complete chain connecting them with the crime and theprosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond doubt. Lastly,the extra-judicial confession is questionable. In the complaint

filed by PW-1 he alleged that the appellants had acted upon thebehest of accused no.5 but did not allude, as admitted in his cross-examination, to any confession being made by Appellant No.1about abducting son and handing him over to Appellant Nos. 2 &3. That such confession was allegedly made emerged during theexamination of the PW-1, PW-9 and PW-22. There are noticeablecontradictions about the circumstances in which the confessionwas made, viz., the number of people in whose presence it wasmade, degree of coercion/fear/intimidation that elicited thealleged confession, among others.[Paras 16-18] [281-D-H;282-A]1.3 In the present case, there are no eye witnesses to affirmand corroborate the fact that the Appellant No. 1, as allegedlyconfessed, had taken PW-1’s son on bicycle and handed overthe child to Appellant Nos. 2 and 3. Further, the unfounded lastseen theory, contradicting medical evidence, and facts of the case,particularly concerning the recovery of the body, belie the materialdetails of the alleged extra-judicial confession. Ergo, in theabsence of any credible corroboration of both: the actualoccurrence of such confession and the incriminating facts allegedto have been disclosed in the confession, this Court cannot acceptthat the conviction of the appellants can be sustained on the basisof such confession. Accused No.5, was not convicted by theappellate court. Appellant No. 4 who was convicted by theappellate court was not assigned any role in the entire incident.The High Court should not have interfered with the acquittalsgiven by the trial court, unless the acquittals were vitiated bymanifest illegality or such conclusion “could not have beenpossibly arrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciouslyand is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse”. Wherean appellate court is reversing trial court’s order of acquittal, itshould give proper weight and consideration to the presumptionof innocence in favour of the accused, and to the principle thatsuch presumption stands “reinforced, reaffirmed, andstrengthened by the trial court”. The conviction and sentencesof the appellants is set aside and they are directed to be releasedfrom custody, unless required to be detained in any other case inaccordance with law. [Paras 20-22] [283-B-G; 284-A]

EFG

ASharad Birdichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra(1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 ; Bodh Raj AliasBodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC45 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 67 ; Rambraksh v. State ofChhattisgarh (2016) 12 SCC 251 : [2016] 2 SCR 599 ; Anjan Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam 2017 (6)BSCALE 556 ; Sahadevan v. State of T.N. (2012) 6 SCC403 : [2012] 4 SCR 366 ; Jagroop Singh v. State ofPunjab (2012) 11 SCC 768 : [2012] 7 SCR 91 ; TotaSingh v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529 : [1987] 2SCR 747 ; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4CSCC 415 : [2007] 2 SCR 630 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 333-334 of 2017.FFrom the Judgment and Order dated 28.09.2016/13.10.2016 ofthe High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1022of 2006 with Criminal Revision Application No. 50 of 2006.

Ms. Manisha T. Karia, Shashank S. Mangal, Ms. Sukhda Kalra,Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi, Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Soumya Kundu, AnuragGKashyap, Aniruddha P. Mayee, A. Rajarajan, P. S. Sudheer, RishiMaheshwari, Mrs. Mayuri Nayyar Chawla, Ms. Anne Mathew, BharatSood and Ms. Shruti Jose, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. These appeals arise from the judgment of the Division Benchof the High Court of Gujarat dated 28[th] September 2016 convicting theappellants under Section 302 read with Sections 363, 364, 364-A and365 and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 21 (1)(a)of the Arms Act and under Section 3 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Act.The Division Bench while reversing the order of acquittal passed by thetrial court, has imposed following punishment upon the appellants:

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 5[th] February2001, the complainant, Paramhansh Mangal Yadav (PW-1), had informedthe police at Kapodra Police Station that his youngest son, Arjun, agedabout 9 years who was studying in second standard, was missing from4[th] February 2001. On the fateful day, the complainant, as per routine,had left for work at 8:00 am and had returned at 2:00 pm for lunch, when

he noticed that Arjun was missing. The complainant had searched forArjun in the streets and at the relatives’ residing nearby but he could notbe located. This information given by the complainant was recorded byan entry made in the police diary. Thereafter, formal complaint wasregistered on 14[th] February 2001. In this complaint, Paramhansh (PW-1) had pointed out that initially Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan, Appellant/

AAccused No.1, had joined the search but thereafter he had suddenlyvanished. After about four days, the Appellant No.1 had made call tothe complainant and disclosed that he was in Vapi. The complainant gotsuspicious and thereupon had sent his brother-in-law SadhusharanHarinandan Yadav (PW-9) and two other relatives Sudarshan andPremchand Yadav to Vapi to bring Appellant No. 1 back. Upon returning,BAppellant No. 1 is alleged to have made an extra-judicial confessionbefore about 50 people near Paramhansh’s (PW-1) house. AppellantNo. 1 had confessed that he had kidnapped Arjun at the behest ofRamkeval Mutur Yadav, Accused No. 5, who had animosity and grievanceagainst the complainant. Appellant No. 1 had made Arjun sit on his bicycleCand had taken him to the railway station, where he was handed over toRam Ashish and Shivnath, Appellant/Accused Nos. 2 and 3.3. Thereupon, Shailendra, Appellant No. 1, was arrested by thepolice on 14[th] February 2001.

4. After the alleged extra-judicial confession, the complainant hadDsent his brother-in-law, Sadhusharan (PW-9), again to Vapi along withone Jugeswar to search for Appellant Nos. 2 and 3. They had thereuponmet Sanjay at Vapi who had informed that Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 wereresiding at his home. Thereupon Jugeswar informed the complainantwho in turn conveyed this information to police. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3Ewere thereafter arrested by the police from the house of Sanjay.

5. It is the case of the police that on 13[th] February 2001 mutilateddecomposed dead body without one leg was found by Naginbhai KalyanjiPatel (PW-15) and his son Sanjay Patel (PW-5) in their agricultural farm,who had then informed the police station at Pandesara. The said deadFbody was sent for post mortem to the New Civil Hospital in Surat andkept in the mortuary.

6. It is the case of the police that dead body was of Arjun and thatthe Appellant No. 1 after arrest on 14[th] February 2001 had disclosed andshown the place where Arjun was left with Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 andGwhere the bicycle used had been left. The Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 hadalso agreed and shown the place where Arjun was murdered and hisdead body was disposed.

7. After completing investigation charges were framed againstthe accused for offenses under Section 363, 364, 364-A, 365 and 302read with Section 120-B of the IPC and under Section 21 (1) (a) of theH

Arms Act and under Section 3 and 5 of Indian Explosive Act and theywere put to trial.

8. There is no eye witness of the incident and the entire case ofthe prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The trial court videjudgment dated 17[th] January 2006 acquitted the accused from the charges.The circumstances which weighed with the trial court were:

(I)The fact that the Appellant No.1 and the deceased wereseen together prior to death was extremely doubtful,and was not proved.

(II)No reliance could be placed on extra-judicial confession.

(III)Medical evidence adduced in the case wascontradictory.

(IV)When the first Panchnama after recovery of the deadbody was drawn no hair or bone was found at the siteof the occurrence but subsequently bunch of hair andbones were discovered from the same site on the pointingout of the accused.

(V)No evidence has been adduced in respect of ownershipof bicycle on which the Appellant No.1 was alleged tohave taken away the deceased, to establish that itbelonged to him or it was borrowed by him from someperson.

(VI)Demand of ransom for kidnapping was not proved byevidence thus motive was not established.

(VII)These circumstances proved did not link together so asto form complete chain leading to only one consequencei.e. guilt of the accused.

9. Relying broadly on the testimonies of Kamlesh BhagvanbhaiThakur (PW-28) and Kashiben Chhitubhai Patel (PW-29) to establishthe last seen theory and the extra-judicial confession, while cherry-pickingthe details of and papering the gaps in the medical evidence, the HighCourt set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellants. The challengeto the conviction, consequently, has been predicated on the tenability ofthe said evidence.

A10. At the outset, there are material contradictions in the testimoniesof Kamlesh (PW-28) and Kashiben (PW-29). Kamlesh (PW-28) hastestified that he and Dhaval were playing in the society and Arjun wasriding bicycle, whereas Kashiben (PW-29) has deposed that Arjunwas on the terrace of Paramhansh’s (PW-1) house, around the sametime. Further, Kashiben (PW-29) though seated near the door has notBdeposed as to the presence of Kamlesh (PW-28) in the vicinity. Moreimportantly in the context of the Appellant No. 1 being last seen withArjun, Kamlesh (PW-28) deposed that Appellant No.1 had spoken toArjun, while they were heading towards the video game shop; Kashiben(PW-29), on the other hand, has deposed that the Appellant No.1 hadCgone to the terrace of Paramhansh’s (PW-1) house where Arjun wasalso present and both of them came down. The story about the abductionof Arjun projected by Kashiben (PW-29) is even more debatable, if notclearly unacceptable as house of the complainant – Paramhansh (PW-1) is located at some distance (five houses apart) from the residence ofKashiben (PW-29). The evidence of Kamlesh (PW-28) and KashibenD(PW-29) also becomes shaky as both of them knew that Arjun wasmissing since 4[th] February 2001 but did not inform Paramhansh (PW-1)or the police to the presence and conduct of the Appellant No. 1, despiteresiding near the residence of the complainant and being aware of thefrantic search for Arjun post his disappearance. This renders theirEtestimony unreliable. Thus, the theory of last seen fails and is rejected asa feeble and untrustworthy evidence.

11. As noticed above, the dead body in decomposed state withone leg missing was found on 13[th] February 2001 in the agricultural farmof Naginbhai Patel (PW-15) and Sanjay Patel (PW-5), which is dayFbefore the Appellant No.1 was arrested. The case set up by theprosecution is that the dead body was that of Arjun. However, thecomplainant and father, Paramhansh (PW-1) has not testified that hehad identified the dead body found in the agricultural farm was that ofArjun. Paramhansh’s (PW-1) testimony is completely silent on the saidaspect. Inspector Munavarkhan (PW-24) has testified that ParamhanshG(PW-1) had identified the dead body but this would be of no consequenceas Paramhansh (PW-1) in his court testimony has not spoken about anysuch identification. Munavarkhan (PW-24) has not referred to anyidentification memo prepared by him. The testimony of witness to thepanchnama on recovery of the dead body vide Ganeshbhai (PW-17)

indicated that the body had decayed and had small maggots in it.Mansinghbhai Valvai (PW-20) who was working as Investigation Officerat Pandesara Police Station has testified that the naked body hadblackened and was puffed up, the external skin had decayed and thebone was visible from knee to paw of the right leg. Further doubt iscreated by the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Pravinbhai KalidasPatel (PW-27) marked “Ex-88” which records that rigor mortis and PMlividity had passed off and the death had occurred 36-48 hours prior tothe post-mortem. Minimum age of the deceased was recorded around16 years. Arjun on the other hand was 9 years of age. As per the policeversion, bones of human body namely tibia and fibula were found at theagricultural farm and sent for medical examination which was conductedby Dr. Mohammad Kureshi (PW-25). Dr. Mohammad Kureshi (PW-25) has stated that bones were in the same stage of decomposition,however in his cross-examination, he could not state the exact age thoughhe was of the opinion that the bones were of person below 16 years.He also admitted that no chromosome opinion of the bones from FSLreport was received and thus it could not be said whether bones were ofa male or female. Admittedly DNA test was also not conducted. In thisbackground, the version of the prosecution cannot sustain, and recoveryof the dead body of Arjun cannot be attributed to the disclosure statementsmade by the appellants.

12. Thus the entire case of the prosecution is based oncircumstantialevidence. It is well settled that in case which rests oncircumstantial evidence, law postulates two fold requirements:-

(i)Every link in the chain of the circumstances necessaryto establish the guilt of the accused must be establishedby the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

(ii) All the circumstances must be consistent pointing onlytowards the guilt of the accused.

13. This court in the case of Sharad Birdichand Sharda v/s Stateof Maharashtra[1] has enunciated the aforesaid principle as under:-

“The normal principle in case based on circumstantialevidence is that the circumstances from which an inference ofguilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly

Aestablished; that those circumstances should be of definitetendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the Accused;that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form chainso complete that there is no escape from the conclusion thatwithin all human probability the crime was committed by theAccused and they should be incapable of explanation on anyBhypothesis other than that of the guilt of the Accused andinconsistent with his innocence”.

14. Another important aspect to be considered in case restingon circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point whenthe accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceasedCis found dead. It ought to be so minimal so as to exclude the possibilityof any intervening event involving the death at the hands of some otherperson. In the case of Bodh Raj Alias Bodha v/s State of Jammu andKashmir[2], Rambraksh v/s State of Chhattisgarh[3 ], Anjan Kumar Sharmav/s State of Assam[4 ]following principle of law, in this regard, has beenDenunciated:-

“The last seen theory comes into play where the time gapbetween the point of time when the Accused and deceasedwere seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead isso small that possibility of any person other than the AccusedEbeing the author of crime becomes impossible. It would bedifficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceasedwas last seen with the Accused when there is long gap andpossibility of other persons coming in between exists. In theabsence of any other positive evidence to conclude thatAccused and deceased were last seen together, it would beFhazardous to come to conclusion of guilt in those cases”.15. In the case at hand, evidence of PW-28 and PW-29, whowere crucial to the case of prosecution to establish that deceased waslast seen with Appellant Accused no.-1, is riddled with unexplainedcontradictions and thus were rightly dis-believed by the trial court. HighGCourt committed an error of law in placing reliance upon the evidenceof the aforesaid two witnesses. The High Court also failed to take intoaccount the time gap between the point when the Accused Appellant

2 (2002) 8 SCC 453 (2016) 12 SCC 251H4 (2017) (6) SCALE 556

No.-1 and deceased were seen together and when the death is allegedto have occurred. According to the prosecution evidence the two wereseen together on 04.02.2001 at about 10:30 a.m. The dead body wasrecovered on 13.02.2001. Post-mortem was conducted on 14.02.2001.Although the possible time of death is not indicated in the post-mortemreport but the Doctor who carried out the post-mortem opined in thestatement that the time of death can be estimated to be 36 to 48 hoursbefore the post mortem. This clearly goes to show that there was hugetime gap between the point when the accused and deceased were lastseen together and the time of death. This crucial fact has been miserablyover looked by the High Court. Apart from Extra-Judicial Confessionby Appellant Accused No.-1 no direct evidence was adduced by theprosecution to establish involvement of the accused in the alleged crime.Entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidenceand theory of last seen together. The extra-judicial confession of AppellantNo.-1 before the complainant and other relatives and recovery of thedead body were linked together by the prosecution to form chain.

16. It is well settled by now that in case based on circumstantialevidence the Courts ought to have conscientious approach and convictionought to be recorded only in case all the links of the chain are completepointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link unless connected togetherto form chain may suggest suspicion but the same in itself cannot takeplace of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused.

17. Having gone through the material on record we are of theconsidered view that evidence adduced against the appellants do notform the complete chain connecting them with the crime and theprosecution has failed to prove the guilt beyond doubt.

18. Lastly, the extra-judicial confession is questionable. In thecomplaint filed by Paramhansh (PW-1) he had alleged that the appellantshad acted upon the behest of Ramkeval but did not allude, as admitted inhis cross-examination, to any confession being made by Appellant No. 1about abducting Arjun and handing him over to Appellant Nos. 2 and 3.That such confession was allegedly made emerged during theexamination of the Paramhansh (PW-1), Sadhusharan (PW-9) and HiralalYadav (PW-22). Notwithstanding the fact that Sadhusharan (PW-9), asmentioned earlier, is the brother-in-law of the complainant – Paramhansh

A(PW-1) and Hiralal (PW-22) neighbour, there are noticeablecontradictions about the circumstances in which the confession wasmade, viz., the number of people in whose presence it was made, degreeof coercion/fear/intimidation that elicited the alleged confession, amongothers.

B19. In Sahadevan v. State of T.N.[5] referring to the aspect ofevidentiary value of extra-judicial confession, it was observed:

“14. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence thatextra-judicial confession is weak piece of evidence.Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entireCprosecution evidence, intends to base conviction on anextra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspiresconfidence and is corroborated by other prosecutionevidence. If, however, the extra-judicial confession suffersfrom material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities anddoes not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version,Dit may be difficult for the court to base conviction on sucha confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fullyjustified in ruling such evidence out of consideration.”

Elaborating on the jurisprudence that has evolved with regard toextra-judicial confessions, this Court in Sahadevan (supra) had stipulatedEthe principles that are required to be kept in mind while relying on extra-judicial confession as evidence. These principles have been succinctlymentioned in Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab[6]as:

“30. Recently, in Sahadevan v. State of T.N., after referringto the rulings in Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. and Pancho v. StateFof Haryana, two-Judge Bench has laid down that the extra-judicial confession is weak evidence by itself and it has tobe State of Haryana, two-Judge Bench has laid down thatthe extra-judicial confession is weak evidence by itself andit has to be examined by the court with greater care andGcaution; that it should be made voluntarily and should betruthful; that it should inspire confidence; that an extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary

5 (2012) 6 SCC 403

6 (2012) 11 SCC 768

value if it is supported by chain of cogent circumstancesand is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence;that for an extra-judicial confession to be the basis ofconviction, it should not suffer from any materialdiscrepancies and inherent improbabilities; and that suchstatement essentially has to be proved like any other fact andin accordance with law.”

20. In the present case, there are no eye witnesses to affirm andcorroborate the fact that the Appellant No. 1, as allegedly confessed,had taken Arjun on bicycle and handed over the child to AppellantNos. 2 and 3. Further, the unfounded last seen theory, contradictingmedical evidence, and facts of the case, particularly concerning therecovery of the body, belie the material details of the alleged extra-judicial confession. Ergo, in the absence of any credible corroboration ofboth: the actual occurrence of such confession and the incriminatingfacts alleged to have been disclosed in the confession, this Court cannotaccept that the conviction of the appellants can be sustained on the basisof such confession.21. The trial court in our opinion had therefore rightly acquitted allthe accused after recording cogent reasons and good grounds. RamkevalMutur Yadav, Accused No. 5, was not convicted by the appellate court.Ajay @ Pradip Hiralal Gupta, Appellant No. 4 who has been convictedby the appellate court has not been assigned any role in the entire incident.Needless to state, the High Court should not have interfered with theacquittals given by the trial court, unless the acquittals were vitiated bymanifest illegality or such conclusion “could not have been possiblyarrived at by any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is, therefore,liable to be characterised as perverse”.[7 ]This Court has time and againheld that where an appellate court is reversing trial court’s order ofacquittal, it should give proper weight and consideration to the presumptionof innocence in favour of the accused, and to the principle that such apresumption stands “reinforced, reaffirmed, and strengthened by the trialcourt”[8.] Given the inherent inconsistencies and incongruities in theevidence in the present case, the alleged actions of the appellants havenot been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

7 Tota Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529

6 Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415

284SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A22. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeals andset aside the conviction and sentences of the appellants in the charge-sheet arising from FIR No. 55/2001. The appellants are accordinglydirected to be released from custody, unless they are required to bedetained in any other case in accordance with law.

Divya Pandey

Appeals allowed.