2000 (5) TMI 1065 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Voluntariness and validity of the confessional statement.
2. Corroboration of the confession with other evidence.
3. Application of Section 27 and Section 10 of the Evidence Act.
4. Determination of the appropriate sentence.

Summary:

1. Voluntariness and Validity of the Confessional Statement:
The trial court relied on the confession of A4 (Balu Joshi) recorded by PW19 (Judicial Magistrate, First Class) as voluntary and true. However, the High Court doubted its voluntariness, citing reasons such as prolonged police custody, proximity of the sub-jail to the police station, and the choice of magistrate from a distant place. The Supreme Court found these reasons fragile, noting that A4 was in judicial custody for almost a month before the confession and that the geographical distance should not influence the voluntariness of the confession.

2. Corroboration of the Confession with Other Evidence:
The Supreme Court highlighted several circumstances corroborating the confession:
- Testimony of PW31 (Sagar) and PW30 (Ramakant) regarding the abduction attempts.
- Testimony of PW41 (Kum. Archana) about the last sighting of Guddi with A4.
- Recovery of the children's bodies and the post-mortem findings.
- Recovery of a blood-stained pitcher from A2 Guruji's house.
- Discovery of a broken glass piece matching the tail lamp of A2's motorbike, corroborating A3's statement about disposing of Dipak's body.

3. Application of Section 27 and Section 10 of the Evidence Act:
The Supreme Court explained that Section 27 allows the admissibility of information leading to a discovery, and Section 10 permits the use of statements made by conspirators in reference to their common intention. The confession (Exh. 88) provided reasonable grounds to believe in a conspiracy among the accused, making their statements admissible against each other.

4. Determination of the Appropriate Sentence:
While the trial court imposed the death penalty, the Supreme Court considered the accused's genuine belief in superstitious practices and their ignorance, despite the horrendous nature of their acts. The Court opted for life imprisonment u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, rather than the death penalty, acknowledging the influence of superstition and greed for gold in the commission of the crimes.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's acquittal, reinstating the conviction and imposing life imprisonment on the accused for the murders, recognizing the substantial evidence and the voluntary nature of the confessions.