Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs. State of Bihar
Background
The appellant was prosecuted along with four others for the murder of two boys (one of them the complainant's son) whose bodies were found buried in a field, and was convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment; the High Court confirmed his conviction while acquitting the other four. The complainant himself and several other witnesses who were originally present were declared hostile, and the conviction rested entirely on the testimony of three witnesses (PW-7, PW-8, PW-9) who claimed the appellant had orally confessed to the murders in their presence.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court closely scrutinized the three witnesses' testimony and found it riddled with contradictions. They disagreed on where and to whom the confession was made, none of them had any close relationship of trust with the appellant that would make an unprompted confession plausible, and none reported the alleged confession to the police despite having 19 days or more to do so before going to the field themselves. The Court reiterated that extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence and can sustain a conviction only if proved voluntary, truthful, and reliable, ordinarily with some corroboration. Finding the alleged confession evidence unconvincing and no other evidence on record against the appellant, the Court held the conviction could not be sustained. Decision Breakdown (continued: outcome): The appeal was allowed, the judgments of both lower courts were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted; his bail bonds were cancelled.
Lesson Learnt
A conviction cannot rest on an alleged extra-judicial confession alone unless the witnesses to it are consistent, credible, and their conduct (such as promptly informing police) is natural. Courts will acquit where such evidence is contradictory or inherently implausible.