Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 525 (UTT)

Kishan Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2017-10-06

RAJIV SHARMA, SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This jail appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 01.12.2015/02.12.2015, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No.06 of 2015, whereby the appellant-accused, who was charged with and tried for the offences under Section 302, 392 and 411 of IPC. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 392 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The appellant was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 411 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on the intervening night of 29/30.10.2014, the house of Smt. Laxmi Devi was ransacked. She was found strangulated, murdered and robbed. The assailant took away about 9-10 tola gold. The jewellery was kept in the box. The FIR was lodged by PW3 Jeewan Singh. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in its support. The statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has denied the case of the prosecution. The accused was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this jail appeal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has supported the judgment and order dated 02.12.2015. 4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record very carefully. 5. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to complete the entire chain. All the circumstances must exclusively point towards the guilt of the accused. 6. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record very carefully. 5. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. In order to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the prosecution to complete the entire chain. All the circumstances must exclusively point towards the guilt of the accused. 6. In the instant case, there are independent witnesses. The prosecution has placed strong reliance upon the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant before the independent witnesses and the recoveries were effected at the behest of the appellant. 7. PW1 Bhopal Singh has deposed that deceased was his mother. His mother was living all alone. The factum of death of his mother was disclosed to him by his brother. He came to the village. The body was sent for postmortem examination. He noticed that the house items were lying scattered. The locks were broken. The recoveries were effected in his presence after 2-3 months of the incident i.e. 04th January. 8. PW2 Dinesh Singh Nagarkoti testified that he knew the accused. He was posted at Almora on 04.01.2015. He was informed by the S.I. Vijay Mehta that the accused would be called for interrogation. He reached the police station. Kishan Singh along with his co-villagers Gopal Singh, Chandan Singh and Bhopal Singh was present. When the interrogation was going on, he has gone out of the police station. When he came back, he was told by the SHO that Kishan Singh has admitted his guilt. He has undertaken to recover the jewellery and hacksaw blade. Thereafter, the hacksaw blade and jewellery were recovered at the instance of the appellant. The jewellery was got identified from the son of the deceased. 9. PW3 Jeewan Singh is the son of the deceased. He has testified that he was informed by his wife that his mother has died. He reached the village. He saw the dead body of his mother lying in the room. He lodged the report with the Naib Tehsildar. The appellant has made extrajudicial confession in his presence that he has killed his aunt. This confession has been made before him in the month of November. The appellant has confessed the guilt and stated that he has committed the sin. He would hand over the jewellery and other items to him but he has spent the money. The appellant has made extrajudicial confession in his presence that he has killed his aunt. This confession has been made before him in the month of November. The appellant has confessed the guilt and stated that he has committed the sin. He would hand over the jewellery and other items to him but he has spent the money. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his mother used to live alone but there were other houses in the vicinity of his house. One old lady used to live there but at that time, she was not there. 10. PW4 Gopal Singh has testified that on 29.10.2014, the villagers were in their fields. News was broken that Laxmi Devi was killed. She was lying in her room. The people went to the house of Laxmi Devi. Laxmi Devi was lying semi-nude. The locks of boxes were broken. He further deposed that the appellant has alarmed the villagers that his aunt was dead. They were sitting in the house of the appellant. Appellant has admitted that under the influence of liquor, he has committed the crime. He asked Jeewan Singh to be pardoned. The recoveries were also effected in his presence. 11. PW5 Ram Krishna Lal testified that he was posted as Naib Tehsildar on 30.10.2014. The report was lodged by Bhupal Ram, S/o Gopal Ram to the effect that Laxmi Devi was lying semi-nude. There were signs of injury on her neck. Panchnama was prepared. He prepared the spot map. He has also taken the photographs of the dead body. 12. PW6 S.I. Ajay Lal Shah has deposed that the accused was interrogated before the police station on 04.01.2015. The appellant confessed the crime before Bhopal Ram and Chandan Singh. The recoveries were effected at the instance of the appellant at a distance of 300 meters from the bakery. 13. PW8 S.I. B.L. Vishwakarma testified that he took the investigation on 04.11.2014. He took the finger print impression. He has prepared the memo vide exhibit A-21, A-22 and A-23. 14. PW9 Rajendra Prasad submitted the charge-sheet. 15. In the present case, the appellant is the nephew of the deceased. It has come on record that the relations between the appellant and the family members of the deceased were cordial. Thus, there is no possibility of the appellant being falsely implicated by them. 14. PW9 Rajendra Prasad submitted the charge-sheet. 15. In the present case, the appellant is the nephew of the deceased. It has come on record that the relations between the appellant and the family members of the deceased were cordial. Thus, there is no possibility of the appellant being falsely implicated by them. The appellant has made extrajudicial confession before PW3 Jeevan Singh and PW4 Gopal Singh. PW3 Jeevan Singh and PW4 Gopal Singh are the independent witnesses. PW4 Gopal Singh in the chowkidar of the village. The recoveries of gold and hacksaw blade have been effected at the instance of the appellant, which was used in the commission of crime. PW1 Bhopal Singh has recognized the jewellery. 16. The report was lodged on 30.09.2014. The appellant was arrested on 04.01.2015. There are four witnesses of recovery i.e. PW1 Bhopal Singh, PW2 Dinesh Singh Nagarkoti, PW4 Gopal Singh and PW6 S.I. Ajay Lal Sah. The cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. In this case, there are some lapses in the investigation. The appellant cannot be given benefit of doubt. 17. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently argued that conviction cannot be based without corroboration. 18. In AIR 1975 SC 1320 , in the case of “Maghar Singh vs. State of Punjab”, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that if the Court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence alone without corroboration. If corroboration is required it is only by way of abundant caution. Their Lordships have held as under:- “5. The second contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant was that there was no material corroboration of the statement of the approver and the High Court had convicted the appellant on the basis of the extra-judicial confession made by the two accused before some persons but that could not in law be regarded as any corroboration at all, because one tainted evidence cannot corroborate another tainted evidence. The evidence furnished by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be a tainted evidence and if corroboration is required it is only by way of abundant caution. The evidence furnished by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be a tainted evidence and if corroboration is required it is only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence alone as was done in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. where their Lordships of the Supreme Court rested the conviction of the accused on the extra-judicial confession made by him before two independent witnesses, namely, Gadkari and Perulakar. In the instant case also, after perusing the evidence of PW 3 and PW 12 we are satisfied that they are independent witnesses before whom both the appellant and accused Surjit Kaur made confession of their guilt and this therefore forms a very important link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. In our opinion the argument proceeds on fundamentally wrong premises that the extrajudicial confession is tainted evidence.” 19. In 2006 (13) SCC 516, in the case of “Gagan Kanojia & another vs. State of Punjab”, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court have laid down the following principles in regard to appreciation of the circumstantial evidence as under:- “10. We would proceed on the well-known principles in regard to appreciation of the circumstantial evidence which were noticed by the High Court in the following terms: “(1) There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. (2) Circumstantial evidence can be reasonably made the basis of an accused person’s conviction if it is of such character that it is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is consistent only with his guilt. (3) There should be no missing links but it is not that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links may only be inferred from the proven facts. (4) On the availability of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. (3) There should be no missing links but it is not that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence, since some of these links may only be inferred from the proven facts. (4) On the availability of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. (5) It cannot be said that prosecution must meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however far-fetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does it mean that prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the law permits rejection if the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise.” 20. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the same judgment have reiterated that extra-judicial confession can form the basis of a conviction by way of abundant caution. Their Lordships have held as under:- “23. Extra-judicial confession, as is well known, can form the basis of a conviction. By way of abundant caution, however, the court may look for some corroboration. Extra-judicial confession cannot ipso facto be termed to be tainted. An extra-judicial confession, if made voluntarily and proved can be relied upon by the courts. (See Sukhwant Singh v. State) 21. In 2007 (12) SCC 230 , in the case of “Aloke Nath Dutta & others vs. State of West Bengal”, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the extra-judicial confession need not contain reproduction of exact words, the Court has to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the confession was retracted or not. Their Lordships have held as under:- “67. The said decision was rendered on its own facts. A purported confession was made by the appellant therein to another undertrial prisoner in jail. They were not known to each other. There had been no previous association between the witness and the other accused person. The Court in the said factual backdrop, opined that it was highly improbable that such confession would be made. Heramba Brahma is not an authority for the proposition that extra-judicial confession must pass the test of reproduction of the exact words. The tests laid therein are cumulative in nature. What is necessary for the court is to arrive at the conclusion as to whether such confession has been retracted or not. No suggestion had been given to the witnesses that confession had not been made. The tests laid therein are cumulative in nature. What is necessary for the court is to arrive at the conclusion as to whether such confession has been retracted or not. No suggestion had been given to the witnesses that confession had not been made. No circumstances had been brought out in cross-examination or by examination of independent witnesses that the statements of witnesses proving such confession are not correct. 73. In his confession Aloke Nath takes the entire blame on himself. We are not persuaded to hold that the courts below erred in opining that extra-judicial confession of Aloke Nath is in any way doubtful. 74. On the aforementioned evidence, the involvement of Aloke Nath, in our opinion, is proved beyond any shadow of doubt.” 22. In 2012 (11) SCC 768 , in the case of “Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab”, their Lordships have held that extra-judicial confession if true and voluntary can be relied upon by the Court to convict accused. The Court has to see whether the statement is true and voluntarily made. Their Lordships have held as under:- “28. The second circumstance pertains to extra-judicial confession. Mr Goel, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently criticised the extra-judicial confession on the ground that such confession was made after 18 days of the occurrence. That apart, it is submitted that the father of Natha Singh and the grandfather of the deceased are real brothers and, therefore, he is an interested witness and to overcome the same, he has deposed in court that he has strained relationship with the informant, though he had not stated so in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. 31. Keeping in view the aforesaid parameters, the criticism advanced against the evidence of Natha Singh, PW 14, and acceptance thereof have to be appreciated. There is no dispute that the confession was made before Natha Singh after 18 days. The fact remains that Natha Singh was not in the village and three days after his arrival in the village, the confession was made before him. He has clearly deposed that Jagsir Singh and Roop Singh alias Jagroop Singh had confessed before him. The appellant Jagroop Singh had confessed about the crime and he had produced them before the ASI. The fact remains that Natha Singh was not in the village and three days after his arrival in the village, the confession was made before him. He has clearly deposed that Jagsir Singh and Roop Singh alias Jagroop Singh had confessed before him. The appellant Jagroop Singh had confessed about the crime and he had produced them before the ASI. True it is, he has improved his version in the cross-examination that he has strained relationship with the complainant which he had not stated in his statement under Section 161 CrPC but the same cannot make the testimony tainted. Barring that, there is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit his testimony. That apart, there is no suggestion that he had not produced the appellant before the police. There may be some relationship between the informant and this witness but the evidence is totally clear and the confessional statement is voluntary and, in no way, appears to be induced and gets further strengthened by the fact that he produced them before the police. There is no suggestion whatsoever that he had applied any kind of force. It is borne out from that record that Bikkar Singh, another accused, had absconded and the present appellant along with Jagsir Singh came to Natha Singh and confessed and Bikkar Singh confessed before Gurdev Singh, PW 10. In the confessional statement, he has stated about the place where the spade was hidden and led to the recovery to which Natha Singh is a witness. Appreciated from these angles, we are of the considered opinion that the said confessional statement inspires confidence as the same is totally voluntary and by no means tainted.” 23. The same principle has reiterated by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) SCC 322 , in the case of “R. Kuppusamy vs. State (represented by Inspector of Police, Ambeiligai)”, as under:- “7. It is common ground that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence leading to the death of the unfortunate female child who was just about ten months old. The prosecution case rests entirely on the extra-judicial confession attributed to the appellant which has been found by the trial court as also the High Court to be voluntary and truthful. 8. It is common ground that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence leading to the death of the unfortunate female child who was just about ten months old. The prosecution case rests entirely on the extra-judicial confession attributed to the appellant which has been found by the trial court as also the High Court to be voluntary and truthful. 8. That a truthful extra-judicial confession made voluntarily and without any inducement can be made a basis for recording a conviction against the person making the confession was not disputed before us at the hearing. What was argued by Ms Mahalakshmi Pavani, counsel appearing for the appellant, was that an extra-judicial confession being in its very nature an evidence of a weak type, the courts would adopt a cautious approach while dealing with such evidence and record a conviction only if the extra-judicial confession is, apart from being found truthful and voluntary, also corroborated by other evidence. There was, according to the learned counsel, no such corroboration forthcoming in the present case which according to her was sufficient by itself to justify rejection of the confessional statement as a piece of evidence against the appellant. Reliance, in support of the contention urged by the learned counsel, was placed upon the decisions of this Court in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Sahadevan v. State of T.N. 9. In Gura Singh case a two-Judge Bench of this Court was also dealing with an extra-judicial confession and the question whether the same could be made a basis for recording the conviction against the accused. This Court held that despite the inherent weakness of an extra-judicial confession as a piece of evidence, the same cannot be ignored if it is otherwise shown to be voluntary and truthful. This Court also held that extra-judicial confession cannot always be termed as tainted evidence and that corroboration of such evidence is required only as a measure of abundant caution. If the court found the witness to whom confession was made to be trustworthy and that the confession was true and voluntary, a conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. This Court also held that extra-judicial confession cannot always be termed as tainted evidence and that corroboration of such evidence is required only as a measure of abundant caution. If the court found the witness to whom confession was made to be trustworthy and that the confession was true and voluntary, a conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. More importantly, the Court declared that courts cannot start with the presumption that extra-judicial confession is always suspect or a weak type of evidence but it would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak about such a confession and whether the confession is voluntary and truthful. 10. In Sahadevan case3 a two-Judge Bench of this Court comprehensively reviewed the case law on the subject and concluded that an extra-judicial confession is an admissible piece of evidence capable of supporting the conviction of an accused provided the same is made voluntarily and is otherwise found to be truthful. This Court also reiterated the principle that if an extra-judicial confession is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is corroborated by other evidence, it acquires credibility. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab. 11. It is unnecessary, in the light of above pronouncements, to embark upon any further review of the decisions of this Court on the subject. The legal position is fairly well settled that an extra-judicial confession is capable of sustaining a conviction provided the same is not made under any inducement, is voluntary and truthful. Whether or not these attributes of an extra-judicial confession are satisfied in a given case will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is eventually the satisfaction of the court as to the reliability of the confession, keeping in view the circumstances in which the same is made, the person to whom it is alleged to have been made and the corroboration, if any, available as to the truth of such a confession that will determine whether the extra-judicial confession ought to be made a basis for holding the accused guilty. 12. 12. In the case at hand the trial court as also the first appellate court have both found the extra-judicial confession attributed to the appellant to be voluntary, truthful and unaffected by any inducement that could render it unreliable or unworthy of credence. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and having gone through the evidence adduced at the trial, we are of the view that the conclusion drawn by the courts below is not vitiated by any error of fact or law. The confessional statement in the case at hand has been made by the appellant almost immediately after the commission of the crime. The appellant is alleged to have gone over to PW 1 S.K. Natarajan, Village Administrative Officer, who was the Village Administrative Officer concerned of Veriappur and narrated to the witness the genesis of the incident leading to his throwing baby Savitha into the well at a short distance from his house. PW 1 S.K. Natarajan recorded the confessional statement of the appellant, which was marked as Ext. P-1 at the trial, and got the same signed from the appellant and took the appellant with him to the jurisdictional police station. At the police station PW 1 S.K. Natarajan got the first information report regarding the incident registered as Crime No. 61 of 2005 setting the legal process into motion in the course whereof the investigating officer was taken to the well by the appellant in which he had thrown the child. At the well, the Inspector of Police prepared the mahazar which was signed by the witness including PW 1 S.K. Natarajan himself and took charge of the dead body of the child which had, by that time, been brought out of the well. A towel lying about 20 ft from the well was also seized. 13. PW 1 S.K. Natarajan was cross-examined at length but there is nothing in the cross-examination that could possibly discredit his deposition. No enmity has ever existed between the witness and the appellant to suggest a false implication of the appellant. The only significant suggestion made in the course of the cross-examination is that the confessional statement was not recorded by the witness in his office as stated by him but at the police station and in the presence of the Sub-Inspector concerned. The only significant suggestion made in the course of the cross-examination is that the confessional statement was not recorded by the witness in his office as stated by him but at the police station and in the presence of the Sub-Inspector concerned. This suggestion has been denied by the witness including the suggestion that the statement ought to have been recorded in the prescribed form under the rules and the reason why it was not so recorded was because the statement had been put in black and white at the police station using an ordinary white paper. The witness stated that the statement was recorded on a plain paper because the prescribed forms were not readily available in his office. 14. The deposition of PW 1 S.K. Natarajan inspires confidence in the absence of any material deficiency in the same either in terms of what has been recorded by him or the procedure that he followed while doing so. More importantly, there is no suggestion that this witness had any animosity or other reason which would impel him to go so far as to involve the appellant in a case of murder. The courts below have, in our opinion, correctly appreciated the deposition of this witness and found him to be reliable. The concurrent finding of fact returned by the two courts, has not, in our opinion caused any miscarriage of justice to warrant our taking a different view. 15. Coming to the question whether the statement was corroborated by other evidence, we find that such corroboration is indeed forthcoming in the form of medical evidence and the deposition of other witnesses. The medical evidence adduced in the case suggests that the death of the deceased child was homicidal and that the same was caused by drowning. The deposition of PW 10 Dr A. Muthusamy, in our opinion, is clear on this aspect, although it was vehemently contended by Ms Mahalakshmi Pavani, that the doctor had not mentioned the presence of water in the lungs of the child which, according to her, showed that the story of the child dying by drowning was unsupported by medical evidence. The fact, however, remains that the doctor has reported the lungs of the deceased to be congested. Congestion of lungs implies presence of excess fluids in the lungs, a sign suggesting that the child would have inhaled excess fluid while in water. The fact, however, remains that the doctor has reported the lungs of the deceased to be congested. Congestion of lungs implies presence of excess fluids in the lungs, a sign suggesting that the child would have inhaled excess fluid while in water. In addition, there is a finding by the doctor that there was 200 ml of watery fluid even in the stomach of the deceased. According to Modi’s Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the presence in the stomach of a certain quantity of water is regarded as an important sign of death by drowning. It is almost impossible for water to get into the stomach, if a body is submerged after death. 16. All this suggests that the death was caused by taking in water which one usually does while struggling in a drowning situation. Absence of any other marks on the body of the child also supports the prosecution case that the deceased had indeed died of drowning. The confessional statement thus gets sufficient corroboration as to the cause of the death of the child. 17. That apart, the depositions of other witnesses examined before the trial court also lend corroboration to the prosecution version: 17.1. For instance PW 2, Kanakaran deposed that he was plucking chilly in his field near the field of the appellant on the fateful day. At around 12.00 noon the witness heard someone crying at Chelimedu. The witness and other persons in the vicinity rushed and looked into the well only to find the dead body of the child floating. The witness descended into the well and picked up the child and brought her out. The child was dead. The wife of the appellant was crying and saying that the child had been thrown into the well and that the appellant had killed her. In cross-examination the witness expressed ignorance about any “mundan” ceremony or arrangements for the same having been made by the appellant and that he had no invitation for any such ceremony. The wife of the appellant was, according to the witness, saying that the appellant “suspected the birth” of the child meaning thereby that the appellant was either suspicious about the paternity of the child or her being unlucky for the family. 17.2. To the same effect is the statement of PW 3, Palanisamy according to whom the wife of the appellant was crying aloud. 17.2. To the same effect is the statement of PW 3, Palanisamy according to whom the wife of the appellant was crying aloud. Persons from the nearby fields came running to the well and so did this witness. The appellant’s wife was heard saying that the child had been killed. Kanakaran, PW 2 climbed down the well and brought the body of the child out and kept the same on the western side of the well. The Inspector of Police reached in due course and interrogated him. 17.3. PW 4, Manoharan was declared hostile but was cross-examined and confronted with the statement made before the police regarding the appellant having been seen by him walking away from the place of occurrence under tension. PW 5, Sakthivel, President of Veriappur Panchayat Board, stated that the appellant had come to him and told him that the child had fallen into the well and asked him as to what he should do in the matter. He had told him to go to Maniakarar. This witness was also declared hostile and confronted with the statement made before the police under Section 161 CrPC. 17.4. The statement of PW 6, Palaniammal who happened to be the grandmother of the deceased child is also significant. This witness stated that the child was born 10 months after the marriage of the appellant. The wife of the appellant had stayed on with her parents for seven months after the child was born. She was finally brought to her matrimonial house by the witness and the appellant. Three months later, on 18-3-2005 the appellant returned from Pondicherry where he worked and told her that he had come for performing the “mundan” ceremony of his daughter and asked the witness why she was going to the field when such a ceremony was being held. The witness stated that if the ceremony had to be organised he should have informed them ten days earlier so that they could have arranged to perform the ceremony in a grand manner. The witness told him that since she had engaged two persons for picking groundnuts, he should take his father and perform the mundan. In due course, the father of the appellant also reached the field and while picking up groundnuts along with the labourers, they received the information that the child was missing. The witness told him that since she had engaged two persons for picking groundnuts, he should take his father and perform the mundan. In due course, the father of the appellant also reached the field and while picking up groundnuts along with the labourers, they received the information that the child was missing. They rushed back only to find the child floating in the well. The presence of the appellant in the village on the date of the occurrence is established by the deposition of this witness and so is the fact that the parents of the appellant were not much concerned or happy to join the proposed mundan ceremony. The prosecution case, it is important to note, is that ever since the child’s birth, there were problems between the appellant and his parents regarding the child being unlucky for the family which resulted in the unfortunate incident of the appellant throwing the child into the well. 18. It is manifest from the above that there is considerable corroborative evidence on record to support the extra-judicial confessional statement of the appellant in which the appellant has referred to some kind of suspicion and disagreement between him and his parents regarding the child because of which he threw the child into the well. Suffice it to say that it is not one of those cases where the confessional statement is made to a person whose credibility is suspected nor is it a case where there is no corroboration forthcoming from other evidence on record. On both counts the view taken by the courts below appears to us to be perfectly justified. The same, therefore, warrants no interference from us under Article 136 of the Constitution.” 24. In 2014 (5) SCC 765 , in the case of “Baskaran & another vs. State of Tamil Nadu”, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held Courts cannot be unmindful of legal position, that if evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is found credible after being tested on touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form basis of conviction. Their Lordships have held as under:- “17. It is no doubt true that this Court time and again has held that an extra-judicial confession can be relied upon only if the same is voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind. Their Lordships have held as under:- “17. It is no doubt true that this Court time and again has held that an extra-judicial confession can be relied upon only if the same is voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind. The value of the evidence as to the confession like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. But it is not open to any court to start with the presumption that extra-judicial confession is insufficient to convict the accused even though it is supported by the other circumstantial evidence and corroborated by independent witness, which is the position in the instant case. The courts cannot be unmindful of the legal position that if the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction.” 25. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Accordingly, there is no merit in this jail appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The appellant is already in jail. He shall serve out the sentence, so awarded to him by learned Trial Court. 26. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent to the trial court.