Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 86 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Man Singh

2025-01-07

RAKESH KAINTHLA, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2025
JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.10.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., vide which the respondent (accused before learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police filed a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It was asserted that Pawan (since deceased) was returning to his home on 2.3.2012 at about 5.00 PM. He fell on the way. The informant Uttamo (PW1) was told about this fact on 03.03.2012. He informed the police. An entry (Ex.PW11/A) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Parvesh Kumar (PW11), HHC Raj Kumar, Constable Naresh Kumar and HHG Ranjeet Singh were sent to the spot in an ofÏcial vehicle bearing registration No.HP-73-0919, which Constable Suresh Kumar was driving. An entry (Ex.PW11/A) was recorded in the Police Station. ASI Parvesh Kumar (PW11) prepared the inquest report (Ex.PW11/B). He filed an application (Ex.PW11/C) and sent the dead body to the Regional Hospital, Chamba, for postmortem examination. Dr Navdeep Joshi (PW19) conducted Pawan Kumar's postmortem examination. He found multiple injuries on the body. In his opinion, the deceased died due to a head injury leading to intracranial haemorrhage, shock and death. He preserved the viscera and handed it over to the police ofÏcial accompanying the dead body. ASI Parvesh Kumar (PW11) photographed the spot (Ex.PW11/D1 to (Ex.PW11/D6). The dead body was handed over to Uttamo (PW1). Uttamo (PW1) found, on enquiry, that the accused had murdered the deceased. He had called Nirmala Devi (PW2) and confessed to the commission of the crime. He had also called her when she was admitted to the hospital and he admitted to the commission of crime. This call was recorded by Sanjeev Kumar (PW8). Uttamo (PW1) filed an application (Ex.PW1/A) to take action in the matter. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW16/A). Padam Chand, Additional Superintendent of Police (PW23), conducted the investigation. He visited the spot on 18.04.2012 and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW23/A). This call was recorded by Sanjeev Kumar (PW8). Uttamo (PW1) filed an application (Ex.PW1/A) to take action in the matter. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW16/A). Padam Chand, Additional Superintendent of Police (PW23), conducted the investigation. He visited the spot on 18.04.2012 and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW23/A). Laxmi Devi (PW3) handed over one mobile phone, which was handed over to her by Uttamo (PW1). This mobile set contained a recording of a conversation between Man Singh (accused) and Nirmala Devi (PW2). Padam Chand (PW23) seized the mobile phone vide memo (Ex.PW3/A). He arrested the accused on 19.04.2012 vide memo (Ex.PW23/B). The accused showed the place of the incident. The site plan (Ex.PW23/C) was prepared on the spot. The mobile phone was sealed in a parcel with three impressions of seal ‘D’. The seal impression was taken on a separate piece of cloth. Further investigation was conducted by SI/SHO Shakti Singh Pathania (PW18). He filed an application (Ex.PW6/A) before Tehsildar, Chamba, for preparation of the spot map where the dead body was found. Sushil Kumar (PW6) conducted the demarcation (Ex.PW6/B) and prepared the tatima (Ex.PW6/C). The Jamabandis (Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B) were issued by Anil Joshi (PW10). The case property was sent to SFSL, Junga, for analysis. The result of analysis (Ex. PX) was issued, in which it was shown that viscera contained 94.96 mg % of alcohol in it. The call detail records were issued by Devinder Verma (PW22). The voice sample of the accused was taken, and the call records and voice samples were sent to CFSL, Chandigarh; however, these were not received by CFSL, Chandigarh and were subsequently sent to CBI, Dehli for analysis through ASI Jai Chand (PW20). The statements of the remaining witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, who committed it to learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, who assigned it to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba (learned Trial Court). 3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses to prove its case. Uttamo (PW1) is the father of the deceased and the informant. 3. The learned Trial Court charged the accused with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined 23 witnesses to prove its case. Uttamo (PW1) is the father of the deceased and the informant. Nirmala Devi (PW2) is the sister-in-law of the accused, to whom the extra-judicial confession was made. Laxmi Devi (PW3) is the Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, to whom the mobile phone containing the call recording was handed over. Bago (PW4) is the wife of the deceased. Omi (PW5) and Durgo (PW7) proved that the accused suspected that the deceased had illicit relations with his (accused’s) wife. Sushil Kumar (PW6) conducted the demarcation and prepared a report and the tatima. Sanjeev Kumar (PW8) recorded the conversation between Nirmala Devi (PW2) and the accused. Karam Chand (PW9) is the witness to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Anil Joshi (PW10) issued the Jamabandi of the place where the dead body was found. ASI Parvesh Kumar (PW11) conducted the initial investigation after the police were informed of the discovery of the dead body. Constable Avdhesh Kumar (PW12) carried the case property to RFSL, Dharamshala. HC Pawan Kumar (PW13) was working as MHC, who sent the case property to RFSL, Dharmshala. HC Kuldeep Chand (PW14) was working as a regular MHC with whom the case property was deposited. HC Ramesh Chand (PW15) was ofÏciating as MHC, who sent the voice sample and the disputed recording to CFSL, New Delhi. ASI Man Chand (PW16) registered the FIR. HHC Gian Singh (PW17) proved the entries in the daily diary. SI/SHO Shakti Singh Pathania (PW18) conducted the investigation partly. Dr Navdeep Joshi (PW19) conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. ASI Jai Chand (PW20) carried the disputed recording and the sample initially to CFSL, Chandigarh and thereafter to CBI, Delhi. Kulwant Singh (PW21) got the voice sample recorded as per the directions of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Chamba. Devinder Verma (PW22) proved the call detail record. Padam Chand (PW23) conducted the initial investigation. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He denied that he had any conversation with Nirmala Devi (PW2) or that any such conversation was recorded by Sanjeev Kumar (PW8). Devinder Verma (PW22) proved the call detail record. Padam Chand (PW23) conducted the initial investigation. 5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case in its entirety. He denied that he had any conversation with Nirmala Devi (PW2) or that any such conversation was recorded by Sanjeev Kumar (PW8). He stated that the deceased died due to a fall after consuming excessive alcohol. Witnesses deposed against him falsely. No defence was sought to be adduced by the accused. 6. The learned Trial Court held that the prosecution case was based upon extra-judicial confession and the motive of the accused to kill the deceased due to his suspicion of the deceased having illicit relations with his (accused’s) wife. Both these circumstances were not established beyond a reasonable doubt. The statement of Durgo Devi (PW7) regarding the illicit relationship and the threat advanced by the accused to kill the deceased was not believable because she had not taken any steps after coming to know of such a threat. She even did not narrate this fact to any person. She was closely related to Uttamo (PW1). Similarly, the statement of Bago (PW4) was also not believable, as she had not made any complaint to any person. Omi (PW5) was the relative of the deceased Pawan. The prosecution version that the accused made an extra-judicial confession to Nirmala Devi (PW2), which was recorded by Sanjeev Kumar (PW8), was also not proved. It was established on record that the accused has a strained relationship with Nirmala Devi (PW2). The accused had no reason to make any confession to witness Nirmala Devi (PW2). There was a delay in reporting the matter to the police, which was not properly explained. The prosecution case was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused was acquitted. 7. Being aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the learned Trial Court appreciated the evidence in a slipshod and perfunctory manner. The learned Trial Court failed to view the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective, and it had set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence. The reasoning of the learned Trial Court was manifestly unreasonable, and the learned Trial Court erred in discarding the well-reasoned and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court failed to view the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective, and it had set unrealistic standards to evaluate the direct and cogent prosecution evidence. The reasoning of the learned Trial Court was manifestly unreasonable, and the learned Trial Court erred in discarding the well-reasoned and consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The faulty investigation could not have been used to discard the prosecution case. The accused had confessed to Nirmala Devi (PW2), who was his real sister-in-law. It was also proved before the Court that the accused suspected the deceased of having an illicit relationship with his (accused’s) wife; therefore, the accused had a motive to kill the deceased. This fact was not appreciated by the learned Trial Court. Sanjeev Kumar (PW8) also proved the conversation between the accused and Nirmala Devi (PW2), which was also recorded by him. All this evidence pointed towards the guilt of the accused; therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 8. We have heard Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, and Ms. Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 9. Mr J.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant/State, submitted that the prosecution had duly established on record that the accused used to suspect the deceased of having an illicit relationship with his wife. The accused had previously quarrelled with the deceased due to this fact, the accused had made an extra-judicial confession to Nirmala (PW2) on two occasions. This confession was also recorded by Sanjeev Kumar (PW8) on the mobile phone. These circumstances, taken together, pointed towards the guilt of the accused, and the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside. 10. Ms Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, submitted that the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view based on the evidence led before it. The prosecution has examined the related witnesses, and their testimonies were not satisfactory. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the relationship between the accused and Nirmala Devi (PW2) was strained, and he had no reason to make an extra- judicial confession to Nirmala Devi (PW2). The prosecution has examined the related witnesses, and their testimonies were not satisfactory. Learned Trial Court had rightly held that the relationship between the accused and Nirmala Devi (PW2) was strained, and he had no reason to make an extra- judicial confession to Nirmala Devi (PW2). The recording stated to have been made by Sanjeev Kumar was never produced before the Court. As per the prosecution case, the voice sample of the accused taken before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the disputed recording were sent to CBI. However, the result of the analysis was not placed on record. Even no application was filed before this Court to prove the result of the analysis, and the Court should draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. Therefore, she prayed that the present appeal be dismissed. 11. We have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 12. The present appeal has been filed against a judgment of acquittal. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallappa v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 3 SCC 544 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 130 that while deciding an appeal against acquittal, the High Court should see whether the evidence was properly appreciated on record or not; second whether the finding of the Court is illegal or affected by the error of law or fact and thirdly; whether the view taken by the Trial Court was a possible view, which could have been taken based on the material on record. The Court will not lightly interfere with the judgment of acquittal. It was observed: “25. We may first discuss the position of law regarding the scope of intervention in a criminal appeal. For that is the foundation of this challenge. It is the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused unless proven guilty. The presumption continues at all stages of the trial and finally culminates into a fact when the case ends in acquittal. The presumption of innocence gets concretised when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the trial court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened, and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal: 26. The presumption of innocence gets concretised when the case ends in acquittal. It is so because once the trial court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, finds that the accused was not guilty, the presumption gets strengthened, and a higher threshold is expected to rebut the same in appeal: 26. No doubt, an order of acquittal is open to appeal, and there is no quarrel about that. It is also beyond doubt that in the exercise of appellate powers, there is no inhibition on the High Court to reappreciate or re-visit the evidence on record. However, the power of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence is a qualified power, especially when the order under challenge is of acquittal. The first and foremost question to be asked is whether the trial court thoroughly appreciated the evidence on record and gave due consideration to all material pieces of evidence. The second point for consideration is whether the finding of the trial court is illegal or affected by an error of law or fact. If not, the third consideration is whether the view taken by the trial court is a fairly possible view. A decision of acquittal is not meant to be reversed on a mere difference of opinion. What is required is an illegality or perversity. 27. It may be noted that the possibility of two views in a criminal case is not an extraordinary phenomenon. The “two-views theory” has been judicially recognised by the courts, and it comes into play when the appreciation of evidence results in two equally plausible views. However, the controversy is to be resolved in favour of the accused. For, the very existence of an equally plausible view in favour of the innocence of the accused is in itself a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution. Moreover, it reinforces the presumption of innocence. Therefore, when two views are possible, following the one in favour of the innocence of the accused is the safest course of action. Furthermore, it is also settled that if the view of the trial court, in a case of acquittal, is a plausible view, it is not open for the High Court to convict the accused by reappreciating the evidence. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eye of the law. 28. If such a course is permissible, it would make it practically impossible to settle the rights and liabilities in the eye of the law. 28. In Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 10 SCC 230 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 19 : (SCC pp.236-237, para 13) “13. Considering the reasons given by the trial court and on an appraisal of the evidence, in our considered view, the view taken by the trial court was a possible one. Thus, the High Court should not have interfered with the judgment of acquittal. This Court in Jagan M. Seshadri v. State of T.N., (2002) 9 SCC 639 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 1494 has laid down that as the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court while recording the acquittal is a reasonable view, it is not permissible to interfere in appeal. The duty of the High Court while reversing the acquittal has been dealt with by this Court, thus: (SCC p. 643, para 9) ‘9. … We are constrained to observe that the High Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal. It was required to deal with various grounds on which acquittal had been based and to dispel those grounds. It has not done so. Salutary principles while dealing with appeals against acquittal have been overlooked by the High Court. If the appreciation of evidence by the trial court did not suffer from any flaw, as indeed none has been pointed out in the impugned judgment, the order of acquittal could not have been set aside. The view taken by the learned trial court was a reasonable view, and even if by any stretch of the imagination, it could be said that another view was possible, that was not a ground sound enough to set aside an order of acquittal.” 29. In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., (2022) 6 SCC 294 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 522 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court analysed the relevant decisions and summarised the approach of the appellate court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus: (SCC p. 297, para 7) “7. It is well settled that: 7.1. In Sanjeev v. State of H.P., (2022) 6 SCC 294 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 522 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court analysed the relevant decisions and summarised the approach of the appellate court while deciding an appeal from the order of acquittal. It observed thus: (SCC p. 297, para 7) “7. It is well settled that: 7.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the reasons which had weighed with the trial court in acquitting the accused must be dealt with in case the appellate court is of the view that the acquittal rendered by the trial court deserves to be upturned (See Vijay Mohan Singh v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 5 SCC 436 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 586 and Anwar Ali v. State of H.P., (2020) 10 SCC 166 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 395 ). 7.2. With an order of acquittal by the trial court, the normal presumption of innocence in a criminal matter gets reinforced (See Atley v. State of U.P., 1955 SCC OnLine SC 51 : AIR 1955 SC 807 ). 7.3. If two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with the appeal against acquittal (See Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 ).” 13. This position was reiterated in Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2581, wherein it was observed at page 175: “20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325 , regarding the power of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus: (SCC p. 432, para 42) “42. … (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and law. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on the exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and law. (3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufÏcient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc., are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reafÏrmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1977) 2 SCC 205 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 308 , a three- judge Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the trial court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufÏcient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses, and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the trial court to reject their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice.” 14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice.” 14. The present appeal has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 15. The prosecution has relied upon the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to Nirmala Devi (PW2). It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1180 that the Court can rely upon the extra-judicial confession if it is credible and made to an independent and unbiased person. It was observed: “35. As noted hereinbefore, the next link in the chain of circumstances relied on by the prosecution is the extra- judicial confession allegedly made by the appellants to PW- 7. True that the extra-judicial confession cannot always be taken as a weak piece of evidence, and the question of whether it is worthy to be taken as admissible and to form a basis for conviction in a criminal trial would depend upon the veracity of the witness to whom the confession was allegedly made. 36. In the decision in Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 14 SCC 667 : AIR 2009 SC 378 , this Court held that after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession could be accepted and it could be the basis of a conviction if it passes the touchstone of credibility. 37. In the decision in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 , this Court held thus:— “An extrajudicial 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 extrajudicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful, and it loses its importance.” 38. In Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 12 SCC 341 this Court held thus:— “8. We shall first deal with the question regarding a claim of extra-judicial confession. Though it is not necessary that the witness should speak the exact words but, there cannot be vital and material difference. While dealing with a stand of extra-judicial confession, the court has to satisfy that the same was voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence. We shall first deal with the question regarding a claim of extra-judicial confession. Though it is not necessary that the witness should speak the exact words but, there cannot be vital and material difference. While dealing with a stand of extra-judicial confession, the court has to satisfy that the same was voluntary and without any coercion and undue influence. Extra-judicial confession can form the basis of conviction if persons before whom it is stated to be made appear to be unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused. Where there is material to show animosity, the court has to proceed cautiously and find out whether a confession, just like any other evidence, depends on the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It is not invariable that the court should not accept such evidence if actual words as claimed to have been spoken are not reproduced and the substance is given. It will depend on the circumstances of the case. If substance itself is sufÏcient to prove culpability and there is no ambiguity about the import of the statement made by the accused, evidence can be acted upon even though substance and not actual words have been stated. The human mind is not a tape recorder which records what has been spoken word by word. The witness should be able to say as nearly as possible actual words spoken by the accused. That would rule out the possibility of erroneous interpretation of any ambiguous statement. If word-by-word repetition of the statement of the case is insisted upon, more often than not, the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession has to be thrown out as unreliable and not useful. That cannot be a requirement in law. There can be some persons who have a good memory and may be able to repost exact words, and there may be many who are possessed of normal memory and do so. It is for the court to judge the credibility of the witness' capacity and thereafter to decide whether his or her evidence has to be accepted or not. If the court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was voluntary based on such evidence, a conviction can be founded. Such confession should be clear, specific and unambiguous.” 16. If the court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was voluntary based on such evidence, a conviction can be founded. Such confession should be clear, specific and unambiguous.” 16. A similar view was taken in Ratnu Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1667, wherein it was observed: “9. As regards the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in the case of Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 19 SCC 447 : (2019) 19 SCC 447 , in Paragraph 11, this Court held thus: “11. It is true that an extra-judicial confession is used against its maker, but as a matter of caution, it is advisable for the court to look for a corroboration with the other evidence on record. In Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar, (2008) 17 SCC 128 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 466, this Court, while dealing with extra-judicial confession held that extra-judicial confession is, on the face of it, weak evidence and the Court is reluctant, in the absence of a chain of cogent circumstances, to rely on it, for the purpose of recording a conviction. In the instant case, it may be noticed that there are no additional cogent circumstances on record to rely on it. At the same time, Shambhu Singh (PW 3), while recording his statement under Section 164 CrPC, has not made such a statement of extra-judicial confession (Ext. D-5) made by accused Babu Lal. In addition, no other circumstances are on record to support it.” (emphasis added) In paragraph 16 of the decision of this Court in the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2023) 6 SCC 605 (2023) 6 SCC 605 , this Court held thus: “16. It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful, and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for independent, reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful, and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is well-settled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for independent, reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence.”(Emphasis added) 10. The normal rule of human conduct is that if a person wants to confess to the crime committed by him, he will do so before the person in whom he has implicit faith. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant had a close acquaintance with PW-1 for a certain length of time before the incident. Moreover, the version of the witness in examination-in-chief and cross-examination is entirely different. Therefore, in our considered view, the testimony of PW-1 is not reliable. Hence, the case of extra-judicial confession cannot be accepted.” 17. The extra-judicial confession stated to have been made by the accused has to be appreciated as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 18. Nirmala Devi (PW2) stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused is her brother-in-law, the elder brother of her husband. He called her on the phone on 09.03.2012 and asked her to visit Chowgan No.4 in Chamba town. She went to Chowgan No. 4, where the accused was already present with his wife and children. The accused confided in her and pleaded to save him since he had murdered Pawan, son of Uttamo (PW1). He asked her to arrange an able lawyer for him. She questioned him as to how he had caused the death of Pawan. The accused replied that he had murdered him in such a manner that he did not allow the deceased to raise a hue and cry. The accused also told her that the deceased had an illicit relationship with his (accused’s) wife. The accused also asked her to arrange some place for his residence and pleaded before her to keep his family with her. She got frightened and thought that she would be involved in the case, if she permitted the family of the accused to reside with her. The accused also asked her to arrange some place for his residence and pleaded before her to keep his family with her. She got frightened and thought that she would be involved in the case, if she permitted the family of the accused to reside with her. The accused also pleaded to make some arrangements for selling the land and told her that he would leave the place with the family and settle down somewhere. She returned to her room, and the accused left along with his family members. She disclosed this fact to Uttamo (PW1). She was admitted to the hospital as an indoor patient for 12 days. The accused repeatedly called her on the phone and enquired whether she had made some arrangement for a lawyer to defend him and some place for him and his family. Sanjeev Kumar (PW8) had visited her to enquire about her welfare. She received a telephone call from the accused. Sanjeev Kumar (PW8) recorded the conversation. The accused also told her that he had obtained revenue papers, and he required her signatures on the paper to sell the joint land. However, she refused to sell the land. 19. The learned Trial Court disbelieved the statement of this witness by holding that it was inherently improbable. This was a reasonable view taken by the learned Trial Court. Nirmala Devi (PW2) stated that the accused called her on 09.03.2012 and confessed to the murder of Pawan Kumar. She informed this fact to Uttamo (PW1). However, Uttamo (PW1) stated that he came to know after the lapse of 14-15 days that the accused had pleaded to save him since he had murdered Pawan. The dead body was found on 03.03.2012, and the extra-judicial confession was made on 09.03.2012 on the 6 th day. Uttamo (PW1) made a complaint to the police on 16.04.2012, which does not corroborate the version of Nirmala Devi (PW8) that the accused had a conversation with Nirmala Devi (PW8), and she had narrated this fact to Uttamo (PW1). Further, it is not established why the accused should confess to Nirmala Devi (PW2). Nirmala Devi (PW8) stated that the accused pleaded with her to save him, but it is not shown that she was in a position to save the accused. She claimed that the accused wanted her to keep his family with her, but she declined. Further, it is not established why the accused should confess to Nirmala Devi (PW2). Nirmala Devi (PW8) stated that the accused pleaded with her to save him, but it is not shown that she was in a position to save the accused. She claimed that the accused wanted her to keep his family with her, but she declined. Therefore, the accused had no reason to subsequently make a call to her. She claimed that the accused was the brother of her husband and also that the accused asked her to sign some papers for selling the joint land. However, it is not shown that she possesses any joint land with the accused, which would prompt the accused to ask her to put her signatures on some documents for selling the land. Further, her statement that the accused intended to sell the land and reside in some other place with his family members cannot be reconciled with the plea of the accused that he wanted some able lawyer to defend himself. It is nobody’s case that the accused was suspected of the commission of any crime involving the death of Pawan. Hence, the accused had no reason on 09.03.2012 to tell Nirmala Devi (PW2) that he had murdered Pawan and that he should be saved. 20. Nirmala Devi (PW2) admitted in her cross-examination that she had a matrimonial dispute with her husband for the last two years, and she was living alone after such a dispute. She made a statement on 11.03.2013, and as per her, she had a dispute with her husband for two years before the date of deposition, which means that she had a dispute with her husband on 09.03.2012 when the accused is stated to have confessed to her. Since the accused is the brother of her husband, he would be aware of the fact that Nirmala Devi (PW2) had a dispute with her husband, and he would consider her to be the last person to confide knowingly well that any confession made to her would prompt her to disclose it to the police because of the inimical relationship between her and the brother of the accused (husband of Nirmala). Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the confession made by the accused to Nirmala (PW2) appears to be highly improbable. 21. Thus, the learned Trial Court had rightly held that the confession made by the accused to Nirmala (PW2) appears to be highly improbable. 21. Sanjeev Kumar (PW8) stated that he had gone to the hospital to enquire about the welfare of Nirmala Devi (PW2), who was undergoing treatment at Chamba. The accused had a conversation with Nirmala Devi (PW2) on the phone. He admitted that he had murdered Pawan and thrown him down the hill. He recorded the conversation and handed it over to Uttam Chand. 22. Significantly, this conversation was never produced before the Court. As per the statement of ASI Jai Chand (PW20), he carried the mobile and the voice sample of the accused to CFSL Chandigarh, but the case property was not received by CFSL Chandigarh. He carried the same to CBI, CGO Complex New Delhi and deposited it on 11.06.2012. Therefore, as per the prosecution, the voice sample of the accused and the conversation recorded on the mobile phone were both sent to the CBI ofÏce for analysis. However, the report of analysis was not brought on record. As rightly submitted by Ms. Suman Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent/accused, no application was filed even before this Court for producing the result of the analysis. Hence, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. Since the best evidence of the caller was the result of analysis, which was not produced, no advantage can be derived from the statement of Sanjeev Kumar (PW8) or the call recording made by him. 23. Sanjeev Kumar (PW8) stated in his cross-examination that he recognised the voice of the accused on the telephone, but he did not mention how he could have identified the voice of the accused. Further, he stated that he had visited Nirmala Devi (PW2) to enquire about her well-being at 2:00 am when Nirmala Devi (PW2) was alone. It is highly improbable that the accused would have called Nirmala Devi (PW2) at 2:00 am, and Sanjeev would have visited Nirmala Devi (PW2) at 2:00 AM in the middle of the night to find out about her well-being. Therefore, the whole version of the prosecution regarding the accused making a call to Nirmala Devi (PW2) and Sanjeev recording it appears to be highly suspicious, and the learned Trial Court was justified in discarding it. 24. Therefore, the whole version of the prosecution regarding the accused making a call to Nirmala Devi (PW2) and Sanjeev recording it appears to be highly suspicious, and the learned Trial Court was justified in discarding it. 24. Laxmi Devi (PW3) stated that Uttamo (PW1) came to her with the mobile phone on 07.04.2013 and told her that he had proof of the murder of his son. He further said that the accused had a conversation with Nirmala Devi (PW2) on a mobile phone, and the conversation was recorded. She heard the conversation on her mobile phone and retained the mobile phone with her. She deposited the mobile phone with the police on 18.04.2012. 25. The statement of this witness is also highly suspicious. She was Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Kella from 2005-2010. She knew about the significance of the call recording on the mobile phone, yet she retained the mobile phone with her instead of immediately handing it over to the police. She stated in her cross- examination that she had not disclosed to anyone that she had a mobile phone having the conversation of the accused with Nirmala Devi (PW2). She admitted that her husband was a clerk of advocates. She had told about the conversation between the accused and Nirmala Devi (PW2) to her husband, who advised her to unravel the truth. Significantly, it is not shown that she had taken any action on the advice of her husband or had visited the advocates with whom her husband was working as a clerk to know about the further course of action. Hence, the testimony of this witness was rightly discarded by the learned Trial Court. 26. Karam Chand (PW9) stated that the accused took him and the police to the spot on 25.04.2012 and disclosed that he was returning to his home from Chambi and had a quarrel with deceased Pawan. He also said that the deceased kicked him, he (accused) dragged the leg of the deceased and pushed him against the breast wall. The accused threw the deceased down the hill. 27. His testimony clearly shows that the statement was made by the accused while he was in the custody of the police and the police were present. This is also apparent from the fact that Padam Chand (PW23) stated that the accused was arrested on 19.04.2012 vide memo (Ext.PW23/B). The accused threw the deceased down the hill. 27. His testimony clearly shows that the statement was made by the accused while he was in the custody of the police and the police were present. This is also apparent from the fact that Padam Chand (PW23) stated that the accused was arrested on 19.04.2012 vide memo (Ext.PW23/B). Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no confession made to the police ofÏcer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence. Section 26 provides that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of the police shall be proved unless it is made in the immediate presence of the Magistrate. Thus, a combined reading of these two provisions shows that if the confession is made to a police ofÏcer or in the custody of a police ofÏcer, such a confession cannot be proved. 28. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh v. State of M.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1202 that the confession made by the accused in the custody of the police cannot be proved.It was observed: “23. Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity, ‘the Evidence Act’) provides that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police ofÏcer shall be proved against such person unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27, thereafter, is in the nature of an exception to Section 26 of the Evidence Act. It states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police ofÏcer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Therefore, it is essential under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that the person concerned must be ‘accused of an offence’ and being in the ‘custody of a police ofÏcer’, he or she must give information leading to the discovery of a fact and so much of that information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, that relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved against him. In effect, both aspects, viz, being in ‘the custody of a police ofÏcer’ and being ‘accused of an offence’, are indispensable pre-requisites to render a confession made to the police admissible to a limited extent by bringing into play the exception postulated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.” 29. This position was reiterated in Naresh v. State of Haryana , (2023) 10 SCC 134 : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 22 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1274 wherein it was observed at page 144: 22. In the instant case, the confessional statement of the accused relied upon by the prosecution was admittedly recorded after the arrest of those accused persons when Accused 4, 5, and 6 were in police custody. Hence, the said statement would become inadmissible, having regard to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act 1872. Section 25 of the Act, in no uncertain terms, makes it clear that no confession made to a police ofÏcer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Likewise, Section 26 states that any such statement is inadmissible if given while in police custody. For this proposition, the judgment of this Court in Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 256 can be looked up. 10. Though PW 19 stated that the appellant again made an extra-judicial confession at Central Bus Station in the presence of PSI Mishra, the prosecution has not examined PSI Mishra as a witness. According to the testimony of PW 25, the statement of PSI Mishra was not recorded during the investigation. In any event, the alleged confession made by the appellant before PSI Mishra cannot be proved against the appellant in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, the prosecution's evidence regarding extra-judicial confession cannot be believed.” 30. In the present case, confession was not only made in the custody of the police but in the presence of the police to the police ofÏcer. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly discarded the confession made in the presence of Karam Chand (PW9). 31. There is no other evidence to prove the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to Nirmala Devi (PW2), and the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while discarding this piece of evidence. 32. Therefore, the learned Trial Court had rightly discarded the confession made in the presence of Karam Chand (PW9). 31. There is no other evidence to prove the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to Nirmala Devi (PW2), and the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while discarding this piece of evidence. 32. The prosecution further asserted that the accused suspected that the deceased had illicit relations with his (accused’s) wife. Bago Devi (PW4) is the wife of the deceased. She stated that six months to one year before the death of her husband, the accused threatened her that he would kill her husband because her husband had an illicit relationship with the wife of the accused. The deceased was not on talking terms with the wife of the accused. 33. Her testimony is not reliable. She claimed that the accused threatened her 6 months to one year before the death of her husband that the accused would kill him. She stated in her cross-examination that she did not share this fact with anyone. She did not inform the Pradhan or the Police about the threat advanced by the accused. She is the wife of the deceased and would have been concerned by the revelation made to her that her husband had illicit relations with some woman, and he could have been killed due to this relationship. Still, she remained silent. She further claimed that her husband was not on talking terms with the wife of the accused, which falsifies her version that the accused had an illicit relationship with the wife of the accused; hence, her testimony does not prove the prosecution’s case that the accused suspected that the deceased had illicit relationship with the wife of the accused. 34. Durgo (PW7) stated that she and her children were present at home on 02.03.2012. Accused Man Singh, his wife and his uncle were talking in the house. She heard their conversation. She came to know on 03.03.2012 that the deceased Pawan Kumar had died around 9 AM. Accused Man Singh used to suspect that Pawan had illicit relations with his (accused’s) wife and was heard saying that he would kill the deceased. She stated in her cross- examination that the accused had told her 3-4 months before the death of Pawan about the illicit relationship and his intent to kill the deceased. Accused Man Singh used to suspect that Pawan had illicit relations with his (accused’s) wife and was heard saying that he would kill the deceased. She stated in her cross- examination that the accused had told her 3-4 months before the death of Pawan about the illicit relationship and his intent to kill the deceased. She disclosed this fact to the mother of the deceased Pawan after one month. 35. The statement of this witness is also not reliable as she did not disclose the details of the conversation between Man Singh, his wife and his uncle. She stated that the accused, Man Singh, used to suspect the illicit relationship between the deceased and the wife of the accused, and also, he used to threaten to kill the deceased, but it is not shown that she had taken any steps in the matter. She admitted that the wife of the accused had filed an application with the police regarding her dispossession, and the matter was compromised in the police station on that application. This shows that the relationship between the wife of the accused and this witness was strained. She further admitted that Uttamo (PW1) is her brother-in-law as well as the father-in-law of her niece. This shows that she shares a close relationship with the informant, the father of the deceased. Therefore, she should have been alarmed, being a close relative, and should have informed Uttamo (PW1) about the threat given by the accused and his suspicion regarding the illicit relationship. 36. Omi (PW5) stated that the house of the accused is at a distance of 5 minutes from his residence. The house of the deceased was near the house of the accused at a distance of 2 minutes. The accused was employed as a labourer in his (Omi’s brother’s) house. Two months before the death of Pawan, the accused had asked him to advise Pawan to stop visiting his wife since he suspected that the deceased had an illicit relationship with the wife of the accused. The accused used to pick quarrels with everyone and also used to suspect him (Omi) and many others of having illicit relationships with his wife. The accused doubted everyone. 37. The statement of this witness shows that the prosecution evidence regarding the accused suspecting the deceased having an illicit relationship with his wife cannot furnish a motive to kill him. The accused used to pick quarrels with everyone and also used to suspect him (Omi) and many others of having illicit relationships with his wife. The accused doubted everyone. 37. The statement of this witness shows that the prosecution evidence regarding the accused suspecting the deceased having an illicit relationship with his wife cannot furnish a motive to kill him. According to this witness, the accused not only suspected the deceased, but this witness and many other persons of having illicit relationships with his wife. Therefore, according to this witness, the accused was habitual of suspecting every person of having an illicit relationship with his wife, and it is not explained why the accused would pick up the deceased for murdering him. 38. As per this witness, the accused had asked him to advise Pawan not to visit his (the accused’s) wife. However, it is not shown that he had taken any action in the matter. He stated in his cross-examination that he shared this conversation with his family members but not with the deceased Pawan, his wife, any other family member of his family, the Pradhan of the local Gram Panchayat and the Police. Therefore, it shows that he had not taken this threat of the accused seriously. Hence, his testimony will not establish the prosecution case. 39. Dr. Navdeep Joshi (PW19) conducted the postmortem examination and found that the deceased had consumed alcohol and died due to a head injury. He stated in his cross-examination that if a person falls from 200-300 meters in height under the influence of liquor, he could sustain the injuries. Therefore, the cross-examination of this witness shows that the deceased could have sustained the injuries in the normal course by way of an accident, and there was unsatisfactory evidence of the homicide in the present case. 40. There is no other evidence on record to show the involvement of the accused, and the learned Trial Court had taken a reasonable view while acquitting the accused. This Court will not interfere with the view of the learned Trial Court, even if another view is possible, or this Court would have taken a different view had this Court been trying the matter on an original side. Therefore, no interference is required with the judgment of the learned Trial Court. 41. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and the same is dismissed. 42. Therefore, no interference is required with the judgment of the learned Trial Court. 41. In view of the above, the present appeal fails, and the same is dismissed. 42. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], the respondent/accused is directed to furnish his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court/learned Trial Court, within four weeks, which shall be effective for six months with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment, or on grant of the leave, the respondent/accused, on receipt of notice(s) thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 43. A copy of this judgment, along with the records of the learned Trial Court, be sent back forthwith. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.