The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK CRA No.226 of 2000 An appeal under section 374 of Cr.P.C. from the judgment and order dated 21.06.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No.7/26 of 2000. ------------------------- 1. Rupa Jerai 2. Bharat @ Krushna Jerai 3. Ghasiram Jerai 4. Jagamohan @ Taso Jerai ....... Appellants -Versus- State of Odisha ....... Respondent For Appellants: - Mr. Saktidhar Das Senior Advocate For Respondent: - Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty Addl. Standing Counsel ------------------------- P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- Date of Hearing and Judgment: 28.10.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 1 of 33 By the Bench: This criminal appeal has been filed by four appellants, namely, Rupa Jerai, Bharat @ Krushna Jerai, Ghasiram Jerai and Jagamohan @ Taso Jerai challenging the judgment and order dated 21.06.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rairangpur in S.T. Case No.7/26 of 2000 in convicting them under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter, „I.P.C.‟) and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three years under section 201/34 of the I.P.C. and further directing the sentences to run concurrently. The appellants were charged under section 302/34 and section 201/34 on the accusation that in the night of 25th September, 1999 at village Kathabharia under Badampahad police station in the district of Mayurbhanj, they committed murder of Raimati Jerai (hereinafter, „the deceased‟) in furtherance of their common intention and knowing that the offence had been committed, they caused certain evidence connected with the said offence to disappear to screen themselves from legal punishment in furtherance of their common intention. CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 2 of 33 Prosecution Case: 2. As per the first information report (Ext.1) lodged by P.W.1 Sasmita Jerai before the Officer in-charge of Badampahad police station on 26.09.1999, in short, is that, her father Gopinath Jerai died since five to six years prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. and the deceased was her mother and she along with her younger brother Rupendra Jerai and aunt Sita Jerai (P.W.7) were staying in joint mess along with the deceased mother. On 25.09.1999, the female child of appellant no.2 Bharat @ Krushna Jerai fell ill and died for which the appellants suspected that the deceased had practised witchcraft for which the daughter of appellant no.2 died. Accordingly, they challenged the deceased and quarrelled with her and also assaulted her by fist and slaps. The informant (P.W.1), her aunt (P.W.7) and the co-villager Jatia Jerai (P.W.11) subsided the dispute and thereafter, the deceased came back home and all of them took their dinner and went to sleep. The deceased slept in a separate room alone which was situated at a distance of 300 yards from the house where P.W.1 and P.W.7 were residing. In the early morning hours of 26.09.1999, when P.W.1 and P.W.7 came to the room where the deceased was sleeping, they found the deceased was not available there. Accordingly, they searched for the deceased at CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 3 of 33 different places but could not locate her. They intimated about the missing of the deceased to P.W.5 Gopal Jerai, who happened to be the brother-in-law of P.W.1, so also to the Grama Rakhi (P.W.9) and co-villager Sudarsan Gagrai (P.W.6). All of them proceeded to the house of the Sarpanch (P.W.2) and disclosed before him about the missing of the deceased. Then, all of them came near the house of the appellants and P.W.2 asked the appellants about the deceased. The appellant no.1 Rupa Jerai confessed before them that on 25.09.1999 night, they killed the deceased by throttling and threw the dead body in the water of river Jalapai. On getting such information, the informant (P.W.1) and others searched in the river water Jalapai, but they could not trace out the dead body of the deceased. Then P.W.1 came along with others to the police station and reported the matter.
Facts
On the basis of the first information report lodged by P.W.1, Badampahad P.S. Case No.25 dated 26.09.1999 was registered under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. against all the appellants by P.W.15, the O.I.C. of the police station and he himself took up investigation of the case. During course of investigation, P.W.15 visited the spot, searched for the appellants and arrested them and seized the wearing apparels of the appellants as per the seizure list CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 4 of 33 Ext.4. The appellant no.1 Rupa Jerai while in police custody confessed his guilt in presence of the witnesses and led the police party and the witnesses to a place where he concealed a katuri and gave recovery of the same, which was seized under seizure list Ext.2. P.W.15, the Investigating Officer found the dead body in a decapitated condition and held inquest over the head and trunk separately and also combining the head and trunk of the deceased on 27.09.1999 and prepared the inquest reports Ext.3, Ext.10 and Ext.11 respectively. He sent the dead body for post mortem examination to S.D. Hospital, Rairangpur. He examined the witnesses, sent the appellants to the Medical Officer, Badampahad C.H.C. for collection of nail clippings and sample blood and seized the same as per seizure list Ext.5 and then forwarded the appellants to the Court. He also sent the seized katuri to the Medical Officer of Rairangpur S.D. Hospital for examination and opinion and he also seized the sample blood of the deceased collected by the doctor, which was produced by the escort party under seizure list Ext.12. On 17.01.2000, he sent the material objects to the S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh through the Court of S.D.J.M., Rairangpur for chemical examination and on 24.01.2000, on completion of investigation, he submitted charge CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 5 of 33 sheet against the appellants under sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. Framing of Charges: 3. After submission of charge sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Session after complying due formalities. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants as aforesaid and since the appellants refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the sessions trial procedure was resorted to prosecute them and establish their guilt. Prosecution Witnesses, Exhibits and Material Objects: 4. During the course of trial, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as fifteen witnesses. P.W.1 Sasmita Jerai is the daughter of the deceased and also the informant in the case. She supported the prosecution case. P.W.2 Suklal Jerai was the Sarpanch of the village. He stated that on 25.09.1999, P.W.1 and P.W.7 came to his house and told him about the incident and thereafter, he along with P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.9 went to the house of the deceased but could not locate her. He further stated that thereafter coming to know that the appellants assaulted the deceased on the CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 6 of 33 previous day, they called the appellants through P.W.9 but the appellants denied by saying that they had not assaulted the deceased nor killed her. He further stated that after some time, the appellants told him that they had killed the deceased and thrown the deceased in the river. He is a witness to the seizure of katuri as per seizure list Ext.2. P.W.3 Kusal Jerai is a witness to the inquest report (Ext.3). P.W.4 Suklal Hembram stated that he had seen the dead body of the deceased in the river. P.W.5 Gopal Jerai stated that the deceased died on 25.09.1999 and on the same day at about 6.30 p.m., the appellants were quarrelling with the deceased. P.W.6 Sudarsan Gagrai did not support the prosecution case. P.W.7 Sita Jerai is the sister-in-law of the deceased. She stated that in presence of P.W.2 and others, the appellants confessed their guilt. P.W.8 Jema Hembram is the daughter of the deceased. She stated that the appellants confessed their guilt by saying that they killed the deceased and thrown the dead body in the river. CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 7 of 33 P.W.9 Sukadev Murmu was the grama rakhi of the village. He stated that the appellants confessed their guilt by saying that they killed the deceased and thrown the dead body in the river. He further stated that he and others brought the dead body in the meeting place of Jhalpa and Kanhu rivers. P.W.10 Khudu Gagrai is a witness to the seizure of wearing apparels and nail clipping of the appellants as per seizure lists Ext.4 and Ext.5 respectively. P.W.11 Jatia Jerai stated that after returning from the call of nature, he found that the appellants were making hulla with the deceased. P.W.12 Gobinda Gagrai stated that he himself and P.W.9 had been to the other side of the river and they recovered one katuri and police seized the said katuri on their production. P.W.13 Dr. Sarat Chandra Majhi was working as O.G. Specialist at Badampahad C.H.C., who on police requisition collected sample blood, nail scrapping and hand washing of the appellants and handed over the same in sealed bottles to P.W.15 and proved his report vide Ext.6. P.W.14 Dr. Prasannajit Kar was the O.G. Specialist at S.D. Hospital, Rairangpur, who on police requisition, conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 8 of 33 and proved the P.M. report vide Ext.7 and also proved the query report vide Ext.8 pursuant to the query made by the I.O. P.W.15 Jagabandhu Naik was the O.I.C. of Badampahad police station who is the Investigating Officer of the case. The prosecution exhibited twelve documents. Ext.1 is the F.I.R., Ext.2 is the seizure list of katuri, Ext.3, Ext.10 and Ext.11 are the inquest reports, Ext.4 is the seizure list of wearing apparels of the appellants, Ext.5 is the seizure list of nail clipping of the appellants, Ext.6 is the report of P.W.13, Ext.7 is the post mortem report, Ext.8 is the query report, Ext.9 is the statement of appellant Rupa Jerai and Ext.12 is the seizure list of sample blood of the deceased collected by the doctor. The prosecution also proved one material object. M.O.I is the katuri. Defence Plea: 5. The defence plea of the appellants was one of denial. Findings of the Trial Court: 6. The learned trial Court, after assessing the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, came to hold that there is no direct evidence in the case that the appellants were the actual assailants of the deceased and it is a case based on CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 9 of 33 circumstantial evidence and the case is mainly based on extra judicial confession of the appellants before P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8 and 9. The learned trial Court after assessing the evidence of these witnesses, came to hold that the evidence of these witnesses relating to the extrajudicial confessional, which is stated to have been made by the appellants before these witnesses appears to be true, free and voluntary and it is the consistent evidence of these prosecution witnesses that the appellants confessed before them that they had killed the deceased. Learned trial Court also placed reliance on the leading to discovery of the weapon of offence i.e. katuri, which was seized by the I.O. at the instance of the appellant no.1 Rupa Jerai and came to hold that since the deceased was challenged regarding the practising of witchcraft for the death of the child of the appellant no.2 Bharat @ Krushna Jerai, the appellants assaulted her and in furtherance of their common intention, they killed the deceased and took the deceased from her house to the river side and severed her head and body by means of M.O.I. It was further held that though there are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, but the same is not fatal to the prosecution case. Accordingly, the learned trial Court came to conclude that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellants before CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 10 of 33 the occurrence and they also confessed their guilt and the appellant no.1 gave recovery of M.O.I and from these evidence, it is apparent that all the appellants in furtherance of their common intention had killed the deceased by means of M.O.I and accordingly, found the appellants guilty under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. 7.
Legal Reasoning
"8.... It is well settled that it is a rule of caution where the Court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 25 of 33 any reliance upon such extrajudicial confession. It is no doubt true that extrajudicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and it is for this reason that a duty is cast upon the Court to look for corroboration from other reliable evidence on record. Such evidence requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. If such an extrajudicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, needless to state that its credibility becomes doubtful and consequently it loses its importance." In the case of Kavita -Vrs.- State of T.N. reported in (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 108, it is held as follows:- "4. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on extrajudicial confession, but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It may not be necessary that the actual words used by the accused must be given by the witness but it is for the Court to decide on the acceptability of the evidence having regard to the credibility of the witnesses." CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 26 of 33 In the case of State of Rajasthan -Vrs.- Raja Ram reported in (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 180, it is held as follows:- "19. An extrajudicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made......Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused." In the case of Aloke Nath Dutta -Vrs.- State of W.B. reported in (2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 230, it is observed as follows:- "87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession may under certain circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time form the CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 27 of 33 basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that for the said purpose the Court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; (iii) corroboration.‟‟ In the case of Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod -Vrs.- State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 740, it is held as follows: "53. It appears therefore, that the appellant has retracted his confession. When an extra-judicial confession is retracted by an accused, there is no inflexible rule that the Court must invariably accept the retraction. But at the same time, it is unsafe for the Court to rely on the retracted confession, unless, the Court on a consideration of the entire evidence comes to a definite conclusion that the retracted confession is true." The extrajudicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extrajudicial confession should inspire confidence and the Court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 28 of 33 record to support it. [Ref.: Sk. Yusuf -Vrs.- State of W.B. : (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 754 and Pancho v. State of Haryana : (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 165]. In the case in hand, we find no earthly reason for the appellants to repose confidence on P.W.2 and others to make the so-called disclosure. At this juncture, we found that the statements of the witnesses including P.W.2 are that all the appellants made extrajudicial confession and thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station to lodge the first information report, but in the first information report, it is stated that it was only the appellant no.1 Rupa Jerai, who made the extrajudicial confession and whatever has been brought out by confronting the previous statements of the witnesses to them and proved through the I.O., it also indicates that it was the appellant no.1, who had made the extrajudicial confession. Therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in observing that the appellants voluntarily came to the house of P.W.2 and made the extrajudicial confession. Though it seems that the contention was raised by the learned defence counsel before the learned trial Court that in the circumstances in which the confession was made by the appellant no.1, it cannot be said to be voluntary in nature, but the learned trial Court has not given any importance to the same CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 29 of 33 and erroneously held that the extrajudicial confession is true, free and voluntary one. In the factual scenario, we are of the view that since it was only the confession of the appellant no.1 and not by the other appellants and it further appears that such confession was made when P.W.2 stated to the appellants that if the matter would be reported, then it would be complicated and further assured to the appellants that he could subside the matter in the village about the assault on the deceased, if the deceased would be available, it is difficult to hold that it was a voluntary one and as such no reliance can be placed on the extrajudicial confession and it is not admissible in the eyes of law. Another important feature is that the extrajudicial confession as stated in the first information report is that the deceased was throttled to death and thereafter thrown in the river water. When the post mortem examination over the dead body was conducted, the penetrating wounds were noticed on the person of the deceased and the doctor has stated very categorically that the cause of death was due to decapitation of the head and probably by sharp cutting weapons. Therefore, we are of the view as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the manner in which the death is stated to CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 30 of 33 have been caused in the extrajudicial confession runs contrary to the death as has been found by the doctor (P.W.14) which is another ground for not placing reliance on the evidence of extrajudicial confession. Recovery of Katuri (M.O.I): 12. The evidence relating to the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. katuri (M.O.I) at the instance of appellant no.1 cannot be given much importance, since in view of the chemical examination report, no blood was detected in the katuri. Merely because the doctor (P.W.14) has stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be possible by such katuri, we are of the humble view that this circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty. Sum Up: 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find that there is no clinching evidence on record that the appellants committed the murder of the deceased and after committing the murder, they caused disappearance of the evidence by throwing the dead body into the river water. The so-called extra judicial confession as we have already discussed is not admissible since it is not voluntary one. CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 31 of 33 Accordingly, we are of the humble view that the circumstances available on record do not form a complete chain so as to come to an irresistible conclusion that it was the appellants, who are the authors of the crime and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the appellants under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable in the eye of law.. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and the order of conviction and the sentence passed thereunder is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. The appellants are on bail by virtue of the order of this Court. They are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. The personal bonds and the surety bonds stand cancelled. Before parting with the case, we would like to put on record our appreciation to Mr. Saktidhar Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants for rendering his valuable help and assistance towards arriving at the decision above mentioned. This Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance provided by Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel. CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 32 of 33 The trial Court records with a copy of this judgment be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for information. .......................... S.K. Sahoo, J. .................................. Chittaranjan Dash, J. Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 28th October 2025/RKMishra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 13:35:41 CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 33 of 33
Arguments
From the documents filed by the learned counsel for the State, it appears that the appellant no.1 Rupa Jerai has been released prematurely. Therefore, we are confining this appeal to the rest three appellants i.e. appellant no.2 Bharat @ Krushna Jerai, appellant no.3 Ghasiram Jerai and appellant no.4 Jagamohan @ Taso Jerai. Contentions of the Parties: 8. Mr. Saktidhar Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants argued that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence and the evidence available on record do not form a complete chain. The learned trial Court has erroneously held the appellants guilty of the offences charged and that the extra judicial confession is not at all believable and it appears from the evidence of P.W.2 that such confession is not a voluntary one and the learned trial Court erroneously placed reliance on the confession. Learned counsel further argued that CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 11 of 33 even though in the first information report, it is stated that it was only appellant no.1 Rupa Jerai, who had made the extra judicial confession and it was also the case of the prosecution during investigation, but during trial, the witnesses have stated that all the appellants made extra judicial confession. It is further argued that though in the extra judicial confession, it is stated that the deceased was throttled to death and thereafter she was thrown in the river water, but the post mortem report shows that some penetrating wounds were found on the body of the deceased and the head was decapitated from the trunk and therefore, the extra judicial confession runs contrary to the medical evidence and even though at the instance of the appellant no.1, the katuri (M.O.I) was recovered, but on chemical examination, it was found that there was no blood on the katuri and therefore, the recovery of the katuri cannot have any link with the offence in question and since from the circumstances available on record, it cannot be said that it was the appellants, who are the authors of the crime, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellants. Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 12 of 33 and argued that since the minor daughter of appellant no.2 died, the appellants were suspecting that the death took place on account of the witchcraft practised by the deceased and they also assaulted the deceased and thus the same can be said to be the motive behind the commission of offence. It is further argued that even though there is no direct evidence, but the extra judicial confession of the appellants before the witnesses corroborated each other and since the medical evidence also supports that it is a case of homicidal death and the weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant no.1, the learned trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the evidence to hold the appellants guilty and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Whether the deceased met with a homicidal death?: 9. Adverting to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties, let us first examine the evidence on record to see whether the prosecution has successfully established that the deceased had died a homicidal death or not. In this context, the evidence of the doctor (P.W.14) is very relevant. P.W.14 was attached to S.D. Hospital, Rairangpur, who conducted post mortem examination on CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 13 of 33 28.09.1999 over the dead body of the deceased and found that head and rest part of the body were brought separated. The decapitated head was fixed with the body at the neck. Body was swollen and decomposed. On examination of the decapitated head, he found the eyes were closed, face swollen and skull intact. On dissection of skull, brain and membrance were intact. He found a penetrating injury of size 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 1” on the lower part of face on the right side just above the mandible and another penetrating injury of size 3 cm. x 3 cm. x 1” on the left face 2 cm. from the angle of mouth. On examination of the body, he found the body to be swollen, foul smelling discharge from anus and vagina. Pupa and maggots were present on the body, abdomen distended. On dissection, trachea, larynx and major vessels in the neck were found completely divided. On dissection of thorax, heart and lungs were found intact. On dissection of abdomen, stomach distended contained 20 ml. of digested food, small and large intestine were distended, spleen, liver, kidney and bladder were found intact. He opined that the injuries were ante mortem in nature and the cause of death was due to decapitation of head, probably by any sharp cutting weapons and the death was between 48 to 72 hours at the time of his examination. He also examined the weapon of offence i.e. katuri CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 14 of 33 (M.O.I), which was produced by the Investigating Officer and answered to the query that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by M.O.I. After going through the evidence on record, more particularly, the inquest reports (Ext.3, Ext.10 and Ext.11), the evidence of the doctor (P.W.14) and the post mortem report findings vide Ext.7, we are of the humble view that the learned trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that the deceased met with a homicidal death. The homicidal death aspect of the deceased has also not been challenged by Mr. Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants. Principles for appreciation of case based on circumstantial evidence: 10. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence relating to the commission of murder of the deceased and the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the law relating to the basing conviction on circumstantial evidence is clear in view of the five golden principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622, wherein it has been laid down that the following conditions must be fulfilled CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 15 of 33 before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, according to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. It is thus clear that even in the absence of direct evidence, if various circumstances relied on by the prosecution CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 16 of 33 relating to the guilt of the accused are fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and the chain of events are complete, the Court is free to award conviction on the basis of such circumstantial evidence. In the case of Kishore Chand -Vrs.- State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 286, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: “4. The question, therefore, is whether the prosecution proved guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. In a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstance by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If those circumstances CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 17 of 33 or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis.” In the case of Gambhir -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 351, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: “9. It has already been pointed out that there is no direct evidence of eye witness in this case and the case is based only on circumstantial evidence. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well-settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 18 of 33 guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” In a case based on circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that suspicion, howsoever strong, should not be allowed to take the place of proof. A moral opinion howsoever strong or genuine and suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute a legal proof. A very careful, cautious and meticulous appreciation of evidence is necessary when the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution must elevate its case from the realm of „may be true‟ to the plane of „must be true‟. The core principles which need to be adhered to by the Court, while examining and appreciating circumstantial evidence, have been strenuously discussed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Devi Lal -Vrs.- State of Rajasthan reported in (2019) 19 Supreme Court Cases 447 in the following words: “17……It has been propounded that while scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, a Court has to evaluate it to ensure the chain of events is established clearly and completely to rule out any reasonable likelihood of innocence of the CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 19 of 33 accused. The underlying principle is whether the chain is complete or not, indeed it would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and there cannot be a straitjacket formula which can be laid down for the purpose. But the circumstances adduced when considered collectively, it must lead only to the conclusion that there cannot be a person other than the accused who alone is the perpetrator of the crime alleged and the circumstances must establish the conclusive nature consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.” In the case of Jaharlal Das -Vrs.- State of Orissa reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 1388, it is held as follows: "The Court has to bear in mind a caution that in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof and such suspicion however so strong cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused". CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 20 of 33 In case of Budhuram -Vrs.- State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2012) 11 Supreme Court Cases 588, it is held as follows: "12. The law relating to proof of a criminal charge by means of circumstantial evidence would hardly require any reiteration, save and except that the incriminating circumstances against the accused, on being proved, must be capable of pointing to only one direction and to no other, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. If the proved circumstances are capable of admitting any other conclusion inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of the same." Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of Supreme Court, the evidence on record needs to be analysed to see how far the prosecution has proved the circumstances as enumerated by the learned trial Court and whether the circumstances taken together form a complete chain to come to the irresistible conclusion that the appellants are the perpetrators of the crime in question. Extrajudicial Confession: 11. In the case in hand, the learned trial Court has observed in the impugned judgment that the prosecution case to CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 21 of 33 prove the charges against the appellants is based mainly on the extrajudicial confession made by the appellants before the witnesses. It is apparent that from the first information report, that after the extrajudicial confession was made, the first information report was lodged by P.W.1. However, in the first information report, there is no mention that all the appellants made extrajudicial confession rather it is stated therein that it was only the appellant no.1 Rupa Jerai, who made such confession. Though during trial, the witnesses to the extrajudicial confession, have stated that all the appellants had made such confession, but the previous statements of those witnesses have been confronted to them and it has been proved through the I.O. (P.W.15) that most of them have not stated in their previous statements that all the appellants made the confession rather it was only the appellant no.1, who made extra judicial confession. The witnesses have stated that when at the first instance, the appellants were asked about the whereabouts of the deceased, they denied and they also denied about their involvement and when the appellants were again called and asked about the death of the deceased, then the so-called extrajudicial confession CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 22 of 33 was stated to have been made. In this context, the evidence of P.W.2, the Sarpanch is very relevant before whom all the witnesses have stated that the extrajudicial confession was made. P.W.2 has stated that P.W.1 and P.W.7 came to his house on 25.09.1999 and they told that they could not get the deceased after search and P.W.9, the village Chowkidar also told him that he searched for the deceased but could not get her. P.W.2 further stated that thereafter, he himself along with P.W.1, P.W.7 and P.W.9 went to the house of the deceased but could not locate her and when he came to know that the appellants assaulted the deceased on the previous day, they called the appellants through village Chowkidar (P.W.9). P.W.2 further stated that on his question to the appellants, they denied by saying that they had not assaulted the deceased nor killed her. P.W.2 further stated that after some time, the appellants told him that they had killed the deceased and further stated on his query that they had thrown the deceased in the river. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that at first the appellants denied about the death of the deceased and when he asked them twice, they also denied about the whereabouts of the deceased. He further stated that when he told the appellants CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 23 of 33 that if the matter would be reported, then it would be complicated and further told the appellants that he could subside the matter in the village about the assault on the deceased, if the deceased would be available and then the extrajudicial confession is stated to have been made. The evidence of P.W.2, which has been elicited in the cross-examination clearly indicates that when the appellants were told about the matter to be reported before the police, it would be complicated and that it would be subsided in the village, the so-called confession has been made and therefore, it cannot be said that the confession was voluntarily made before P.W.2 and others. In the case of Sahadevan and another -Vrs.- State of Tamil Nadu reported in A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 2435, it is held as follows:- "12.....in case of circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution relies upon an extrajudicial confession, the Court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extrajudicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other CRA No.226 of 2000 Page 24 of 33 prosecution evidence. If, however, the extrajudicial confession suffers from materials discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the Court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the Court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration". In the case of Balwinder Singh -Vrs.- State of Punjab reported in 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 259, it is held as follows:- "10. An extrajudicial confession, by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extrajudicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. The Courts generally look for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extrajudicial confession." In the case of Pakkirisamy -Vrs.- State of T.N. reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 158, it is held as follows:-