/2023 INSC 0174/
  REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2230 of 2010 
Pawan Kumar Chourasia …..Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar                        …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. The appellant who is accused no.1 was prosecuted along with
four   others   for   the   offences   punishable   under   Section   302   read   with
Section 34 as well as Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
‘IPC’).     The   appellant   has   been   convicted   for   both   offences.   For   the
offence   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   of   IPC,   he   has   been
sentenced   to   undergo   life   imprisonment.   The   High   Court   confirmed
the   conviction   of   the   appellant,   whereas   the   remaining   four   accused
were acquitted.
2. First   informant   is   one   Lakhi   Prasad   Chourasia   (PW­5).   First
Information   Report   (FIR)   was   registered   on   20 th
  June   1989.     The
1

statement   of   the   first   informant   on   the   basis   of   which   the   FIR   was
registered notes that it has been recorded in the presence of Radhey
Prasad   Mandal   (PW­1);   Kisan   Lal   Mandal   (PW­4);   Satya   Narain
Mandal (PW­6); and Mohammad Tamijuddin (PW­7).  It is alleged that
on   10 th
  June   1989,   PW­5   had   lodged   a  missing   report.     The   missing
report   was   in   respect   of   his   son   Kamlesh   and   nephew   Bulla,   son   of
one Hira Chaurasia (PW­9). They were missing from 02 nd
  June 1989.
PW­5 stated that at about 02:00 p.m. on 20 th
  June 1989, he received
a   secret   information   that   both   the   boys   had   been   murdered   by   the
present appellant in association with others.  Therefore, he along with
the persons mentioned above went to the house of the appellant and
made   inquiries.     Though   initially,   the   appellant   denied,   after   some
persuasion, he admitted in presence of the aforesaid persons that he
and   four   others   (co­accused)   had   killed   both   the   boys   by
strangulating them and had concealed their bodies in the field of one
Bhagirath   at   Nakki   Bari.     PW­5   along   with   the   appellant   and   others
went to the said field.   The appellant removed the soil and both dead
bodies   were   found.     Thereafter,   he   came   to   the   police   station   and
lodged a complaint.
3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses.  PW­1 Radhey Prasad
Mandal;  PW­2   Jagdish  Prasad  Chourasia;  PW­3 Shobha  Lal  Mandal;
PW­4   Kisan   Lal   Mandal;   PW­5   the   complainant   himself;   and   PW­6
Satya   Narain   Mandal   were   declared   hostile.   According   to   the
2

prosecution case, the appellant had made a confession in presence of
these   witnesses.   PW­7   Md.   Tamijuddin;   PW­8   Suchai   Mandal   and
PW­9   Hira   Lal   Chourasia   supported   the   prosecution   case   and
deposed about the extra­judicial confession made by the appellant to
them.     PW­10   is   a   doctor   who   performed   the   autopsy.   The
Investigation   Officer   was   not   examined.     The   conviction   of   the
appellant is based on the extra­judicial confession.   Both  the Courts
have believed the prosecution case regarding the alleged extra­judicial
confession.
4. With   the   assistance   of   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
parties, we have perused the depositions of the prosecution witnesses
and   in   particular   P.W.   nos.7   to   9   and   the   findings   recorded   by   the
courts below. 
 
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRA­JUDICIAL CONFESSION
5. As far as extra­judicial confession is concerned, the law is well
settled.     Generally,   it   is   a   weak   piece   of   evidence.     However,   a
conviction   can  be  sustained   on  the   basis  of  extra­judicial  confession
provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It
should   be   free   of   any   inducement.     The   evidentiary   value   of   such
confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by
the   natural   course   of   human   conduct,   normally,   a   person   would
confide  about  a crime  committed   by  him  only  with  such  a person  in
whom   he   has   implicit   faith.     Normally,   a   person   would   not   make   a
3

confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him.  Moreover, the
Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping
in   view   the   circumstances   in   which   it   is   made.     As   a   matter   of   rule,
corroboration is not required. However, if an extra­judicial confession
is   corroborated   by   other   evidence   on   record,   it   acquires   more
credibility.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE    
6. As   narrated   earlier,   PW­1   to   PW­6   including   the   complainant
himself whose son was killed did not support prosecution. The case of
the prosecution was that the appellant had confessed to PW­1 to PW­
9.   We   have   carefully   analyzed   the   evidence   of   P.W.   Nos.7,   8   and   9
who   were   the   only   material   prosecution   witnesses.   Here   is   the
analysis of their evidence:­
(a) PW­7   has   stated   that   on   20 th
  June   1989   at   about   02:30   p.m.
when   he   along   with   PW­1   and   PW­6   and   other   persons   were
talking   near   the   gate   of   Bhagirath   Mandal,   PW­5   came   there
and   told   them   that   he   had   received   information   that
Pawan(appellant)   had  murdered  his  son  Kamlesh  and  nephew
Bulla   and   had   concealed   their   dead   bodies.   The   prosecution
has   made   no   attempt   to   investigate   into   the   source   of   the
alleged information received by PW­5. 
4

(b) The  version  of PW­8  Suchai  is different.     PW­8 Suchai’s  name
is   not   mentioned   in   the   complaint   of   PW­5.     PW­8   Suchai
claims   that   on   06 th
  June   1989,   he   heard   the   appellant   telling
two persons that he had murdered two boys and had concealed
their dead bodies.  It is pertinent to note that though PW­8 had
knowledge about the alleged confession made by the appellant
on   06 th
  June   1989,   he   did   not   complain   to   the   police.     The
omission   to   report   to   the   police   is   very   significant   as   he   was
admittedly the uncle of the deceased Bulla.  His silence creates
more suspicion about the prosecution case.
(c) PW­8   stated   that   he   along   with   others   went   along   with   the
appellant   to   the   place   where   dead   bodies   were   buried.     His
version is that the appellant made a confession when he along
with   others   was   sitting   at   the   gate   of   Bhagirath.     The   witness
has   not   stated   that   PW­1   to   PW­9   visited   the   house   of   the
appellant   on   20 th
  June   1989   when   the   appellant   made   the
extra­judicial   confession.   Though   PW­8   did   not   say   so,   PW­9
Hiralal   stated   that   it   was   PW­8   who   took   out   the   dead   bodies
after some digging was made by the appellant. 
(d) As  far   as  PW­9  Hiralal   is   concerned,  he  is  the  father  of  Bulla.
He   has   not   stated   the   place   at   which   the   extra­judicial
confession   was   allegedly   made   by   the   appellant.     He   simply
5

stated   that   19   days   after   his   son   went   missing,   the   appellant
disclosed   in   his   presence   to   one   Bhagirath   (not   examined   by
the prosecution), PW­1, PW­4 and PW­6 that he had murdered
both the boys and had concealed their dead bodies in the field
of   Bhagirath.     His   version   is   that   it   was   Suchai   (PW­8)   who
took out the bodies.   However, PW­8 himself did not state that
he took out the bodies.
(e) According   to   the   version   of   PW­7,   PW­1   did   not   inform   him
about any extra­judicial confession made by the appellant but
PW­1   informed   him   that   he   had   received   the   information   that
the   appellant   had   murdered   both   boys.     Out   of   these   three
witnesses,   PW­7   is   the   only   witness   who   stated   that   the
appellant made the confession in his own house.
(f) According to the version of PW­7, in the afternoon of 20 th
 June
1989,   he   was   informed   by   PW­5   that   the   appellant   had
murdered   both   the   boys.     There   is   no   explanation   as   to   why
PW­7 did not approach the police. This conduct of the witness
is unnatural.
(g) None of these three witnesses who supported the prosecution,
have   stated   that   the   appellant   was   either   their   relative   or   a
close acquaintance. In fact, they have not even stated that they
personally   knew   the   appellant.   There   is   nothing   on   record   to
show   that   the   relationship   between   the   appellant   and   these
6

three witnesses was such that the appellant had implicit faith
in these three witnesses and, therefore, he confided with them.
(h) Even   after   the   alleged   extra­judicial   confession   of   committing
murder was made before them by the appellant, PW­7 to PW­9
did   not   report   to   the   police.     The   prosecution   case   is   that
without   informing   the   police,   they   accompanied   the   appellant
to the field of Bhagirath where dead bodies were found buried.
This conduct of PW­7 to PW­9 is unusual and unnatural. PW­7
to PW­9 are not consistent about the place at which the alleged
confession was made.
(i) There   is   no   explanation   offered   by   the   prosecution   for   not
examining  Bhagirath  who was also  present according  to  PW­9
when   the   alleged   confession   was   made.     This   omission
becomes   more   significant   as   the   dead   bodies   were   allegedly
found in his land.
CONCLUSION
7. Hence,   the   prosecution’s   case   about   extra­judicial   confession
does   not   inspire   confidence   at   all.     Moreover,   there   are   no   other
circumstances brought on record which could support or corroborate
the prosecution case. Therefore, in our considered view, the evidence
in form of the extra­judicial confession of the appellant deserves to be
discarded.     Admittedly,   there   is   no   other   evidence   against   the
appellant.   Therefore,   the   conviction   of   the   appellant   cannot   be
7

sustained at all.   Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside
and   the   appellant   is   acquitted   of   the   offences   alleged   against   him.
The   bail   bonds   of   the   appellant   stand   cancelled.     The   appeal   is
allowed.
…………………………………J.
[ABHAY S. OKA]
…………………………………J.
        [RAJESH BINDAL] 
New Delhi
March 14, 2023.
8