In this case, their Lords his after referring the principles laid down in earlier decisions, namely Rahim Beg v. State of U.P (12), Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (supra), Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. (supra), Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Narayan Singh v. State of M.P. (supra), have held that extra judicial confession made before a stranger (PW 2), though unnatural, can be relied upon. Their Lordships held as under:
Reliance was also placed upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in Gura Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 330, for the proposition that when the
witness has fully supported the case of prosecution in all material
particulars, merely because he does not concur with the suggestion
made by the Public Prosecutor on a single point is not sufficient to
permit the witness to be cross-examined by the prosecution. It was,
accordingly, submitted that as rightly noted by the trial Court, the
respondent-witness has supported the prosecution case insofar as the
genuineness or otherwise of the currency notes is concerned. Merely
because he does not support the prosecution case as regards his
presence at the time of the raid, is no reason to declare him
hostile.
Mr. Poojari has drawn our
attention to the relevant paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of the
decision in Kathi Bharat Vajsur(supra) Nos.20 and 23 of
Page 64 of 67
HC-NIC Page 64 of 67 Created On Sat Apr 08 01:13:07 IST 2017
R/CR.A/280/2015 CAV JUDGMENT
the decision in Gura Singh (supra) to indicate that the
blood has been found on the knife which has been
discovered and therefore, no benefit is to be granted to
the accused. We are afraid that if this principle is
applied as a straight-jacket formula, then the effect of
the evidence emerging in the case on hand will become
redundant. In fact, the material available in the present
case on hand has clearly ousted the version of the
prosecution as not only the medical officer has, in no
uncertain terms, opined that the muddamal which has been
recovered/discovered is not used in inflicting blow but at
the same time the incriminating circumstance of finding
blood stain on the knife has not been put to the accused
in the further statement recorded under section 313 of
Cr.P.C. and therefore, the background of present facts on
hand is different from that of the aforesaid two decisions
and therefore, those decisions appear to be of no
assistance to learned APP.
In Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan
the evidentiary value to be attached to the extra-
judicial confession has been explained at SCC p.
212-13 para 6 thus:-
In Gura Singh case [(2001) 2 SCC 205 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 323] a
two-Judge Bench of this Court was also dealing with an
extra-judicial confession and the question whether the same
could be made a basis for recording the conviction against the
accused. This Court held that despite the inherent weakness of an
extra-judicial confession as a piece of evidence, the same cannot
be ignored if it is otherwise shown to be voluntary and truthful.
This Court also held that extra-judicial confession cannot always
be termed as tainted evidence and that corroboration of such
evidence is required only as a measure of abundant caution. If
the court found the witness to whom confession was made to be
trustworthy and that the confession was true and voluntary, a
conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. More
2024:KER:84398
Crl.A.No.591/2021 16
importantly, the Court declared that courts cannot start with the
presumption that extra-judicial confession is always suspect or a
weak type of evidence but it would depend on the nature of the
circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the
credibility of the witnesses who speak about such a confession
and whether the confession is voluntary and truthful.
In the case of Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2
SCC 205, the prosecution proved beyond doubt the recovery of the
blood stained 'chadar' (sheet) belonging to the Appellant and kassi,
the weapon of offence on the basis of the voluntary disclosure
statement made by the accused, who was charged with the offence of
patricide and had allegedly smashed the skull of the deceased with the
kassi. Both the Trial Court as well as the High Court held that the
prosecution had successfully established the making of the disclosure
statements by the Appellant and the consequent recovery of the
Crl. A. No. 1345/2011 Page 32 of 47
weapon of offence and 'chadar' at his instance. The serologist and
chemical examiner found the 'chadar' (sheet) and other items to be
stained with human blood. However, the origin of blood stains on the
kassi and other items like the shoes of the accused could not be
determined on account of disintegration with the lapse of time.
102.In respect of testimony of a witness who is very often termed as
hostile, Supreme Court in the case of Gura Singh v. The State Of
Rajasthan, 2001 AIR SC 330, made following observations, which
are relevant for this case as well: -
In Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001
KHC 1019), the Apex Court held that merely for the reason that a witness is
declared hostile, it cannot be stated that the entire evidence is washed out
from the record. It is for the court to consider in each case whether as a result
of such cross examination and contradiction, the witness stands discredited or
still can be believed in regard to any part of the testimony. Taking into account
the fact that A3 had admitted to PW41 about his involvement in the crime,
followed by recovery of the knife under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
proves the involvement of the 3 rd accused. We don't see any reason why a
different view should be taken in the matter.