Conviction Cannot Be Solely On Extra Judicial Confession Unless Supported By Chain Of Cogent Circumstances
Case: Dinesh v. State
Coram: Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice AD Jagdish Chandira
Case No.: Crl Appeal No. 737 of 2018
Court Observation: “It is also the settled law that an extra-judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence and unless it inspires confidence or is fully corroborated by some other evidence of clinching nature, ordinarily conviction for the offence of murder should not be made only on the evidence of extra-judicial confession. In the case on hand, such a chain of cogent circumstances is missing, rather, the case of the prosecution is surrounded by suspicion from the inception.”
A thorough reading of the judgment rendered by the Trial Court makes it clear that though the verdict is overwhelmed with a lot factual aspects and had observed the discrepancies found by itself or pointed out by the defence, it has misled itself in shifting the burden on the appellant/accused to disprove the case against him when the prosecution itself has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. When the case of the prosecution is governed by circumstantial evidence and if chain of circumstances which is required to be established by prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to offer reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106, is not relevant at all and when the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is not a ground to convict the accused.
Previous Posts
Entity Which Misuses Status Under Section 12AA Income Tax Act Not Entitled To Retain It: Supreme Court Upholds Cancellation Of Trust Registration Download Judgement
