Kishan Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. 2024 (AB) 543
Facts: The informant, the husband of the deceased, submitted a written report (Ex.Ka-1) on October 5, 2010, stating that while at his general merchandise shop, he received a call from his brother (the accused, Kishan Pratap Singh), urging him to check on his weeping children at home. Upon arriving home at 10:15 p.m., he found the doors open and his wife's dead body on the floor, her clothes in disarray. He suspected that due to an enmity regarding a dispute over a platform (chabutra), his wife was killed by Anoop Singh and Deepu Singh. An FIR was registered at 11:30 p.m. on the same day under Section 302 I.P.C. An inquest began at 1:00 a.m. on October 6, 2010, with the accused present as a witness. The inquest concluded that the death was homicidal, and the body was sent for postmortem. While the investigation was ongoing, the informant filed a second report on November 25, 2010, alleging that Kishan confessed to him that he attempted to rape the deceased and then throttled her, fearing she would inform the informant. This extrajudicial confession formed the basis of the second report.
Issue:Whether an extra-judicial confession is relevant evidence in a murder case.
Observation: The Allahabad High Court noted that extrajudicial confessions are typically weak evidence and require convincing circumstances to be credible. The defense argued that the prosecution's evidence was unreliable, particularly the extrajudicial confession, which they claimed was fabricated. They suggested that the informant may have killed his wife to pursue a relationship with another woman and manipulated evidence to implicate his brother.
Furthermore, the testimony of P.W.-3, the informant's 3-year-old son, was questioned, as the delay in implicating Kishan (almost 50 days) was inconsistent with his claims of witnessing the incident. The court observed that there was no supporting evidence in the initial FIR or during the inquest to suggest Kishan’s involvement, contradicting P.W.-3's account.
Additionally, both witnesses present during the alleged confession, P.W.-4 and P.W.-6, turned hostile during the trial, denying that any confession was made. The court found the circumstances surrounding the informant's reliability dubious, particularly given the defense's assertion of an affair.
Ultimately, the court concluded that it would be unsafe to convict Kishan based solely on the informant's testimony and the unverified extrajudicial confession. As such, it refused to uphold the trial court's conviction and acquitted Kishan Pratap Singh, allowing his appeal.
