1993 ALLMR ONLINE 6, Uttam Sadda and another vs. State of Punjab

JUDGMENT -The two appellants are convicted u/S 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.The prosecution case is that the two accused along with Itwaro Sadda the deceased were working with one Avtar Singh PW 2 in harvesting the crop.It is alleged that on the intervening night on September 12 1984 the two accused and the deceased slept together.The post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the doctor opined that the death was due to the rings of the trachea being broken.The prosecution mainly relied on the extra judicial confession which was retracted during the trial in the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC The learned Special Judge who tried the case under the Provisions of Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act 1984 relying on the retracted extra judicial confession convicted the appellants.This appeal is preferred to this Court under Section 14 of the said Act.3.Having gone through the record we find that the entire case rests on the retracted extra judicial confession a weak piece of evidence.The learned Judge has not even extracted the details of the alleged confession.The learned counsel for the State however submitted that the medical evidence corrborates the prosecution case.The corroboration we must note is only to the extent of cause of death but it does not in any manner implicate the appellants.The only corroborating evidence relied upon by the prosecution is that all the three were together but in our view that by itself is not sufficient to bring home the guilt and at the most it may raise suspicion which however strong cannot take the place of proof.In the result the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower court are set aside and the two appellants shall be set at liberty if not required in any other case.Appeal is allowed.Appeal Allowed

JUDGMENT :-The two appellants are convicted u/S. 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The prosecution case is that the two accused along with Itwaro Sadda, the deceased were working with one Avtar Singh PW 2 in harvesting the crop. All the three were putting up jointly in a room of tubewell. It is alleged that on the intervening night on September 12, 1984 the two accused and the deceased slept together. In the next morning the deceased was found dead. Uttam Sadda, one of the appellants next day went to the place of PW 2 in a warried manner and it is alleged that he was taken to Sarpanch PW 7 before whom the two accused were said to have made a confession. The post-mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the doctor opined that the death was due to the rings of the trachea being broken. On completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was laid.

2. The prosecution mainly relied on the extra judicial confession which was retracted during the trial in the statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. The learned Special Judge who tried the case under the Provisions of Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 relying on the retracted extra judicial confession convicted the appellants. This appeal is preferred to this Court under Section 14 of the said Act.

3. Having gone through the record, we find that the entire case rests on the retracted extra judicial confession, a weak piece of evidence. The learned Judge has not even extracted the details of the alleged confession. The learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that the medical evidence corrborates the prosecution case. The corroboration we must note, is only to the extent of cause of death, but it does not in any manner implicate the appellants. The only corroborating evidence relied upon by the prosecution is that all the three were together, but in our view, that by itself is not sufficient to bring home the guilt and at the most it may raise suspicion which, however, strong cannot take the place of proof. In the result the conviction and sentence awarded by the lower court are set aside and the two appellants shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case. Appeal is allowed.