1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 131 OF 2006

CHANDRA BONIA                                     Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF ASSAM                                    Respondent(s)

O  R D E R

This  

appeal  

against  

the  

conviction  has  been  filed  against  the  concurrent  findings  

recorded by the trial court and the High Court for a double  

murder committed on 7th October,1990 for which the appellant was  

sentenced  for  life  on  two  counts,  both  sentences  to  run  

concurrently.

As per the prosecution story, Somra Munda and Agnash Munda,  

the  father  and  brother  of  the  first  informant  were  murdered  

during the night of 7th October, 1990 in their house.  The First

2 Information Report was lodged by Chukhnu Munda at Police Station  

Marian on the 8th October, 1990 alleging that during his absence  

from the house some persons had murdered his father and younger  

brother.   During  the  course  of  the  investigation,  the  police  

recorded the statement of various witnesses including PW 1 Pradip  

Das and PW 2 Niran Bonia (who were both declared hostile), PW 5,  

the Medical Officer who had conducted the post mortem on the two  

dead bodies,  PW 6 the informant and PW 7 Baloni Bawri, who was a  

neighbour  

of  the  

deceased,  

and  to  

whom  the  

accused  

had  made  

an  extra  

judicial  

confession  on  the  date  of  the  murder  itself  and  PW  12  the  

Investigating Officer who was also a witness to the recovery of  

the murder weapon at the instance of the accused.  The trial  

court and the High Court have both noticed that as the solitary  

eye witness had died and the other two material witnesses PW 1  

and PW 2 had been declared hostile, the prosecution story rested  

exclusively on the confession made by the accused to PW 7 and the  

factum of recovery of the dao at the instance of the accused

3 before PW 12 the Investigating Officer.  

At the  hearing before  us today,  Mr. Praneet  Ranjan, the  

learned Amicus Curiae for the accused – appellant has argued that  

the  only  evidence  against  the  accused  was  the  extra  judicial  

confession made before PW 7 and as this evidence was  a weak kind  

of  evidence,  the  conviction  of  the  appellant  could  not  be  

maintained. He has further submitted that police had, in fact,  

used  third  degree  methods  and  tortured  and  threatened  the  

witnesses  

to  give  

false  

evidence  

and  as  

such  the  

case  

against  

the  

appellant  

appeared to be a concocted one.

Mr. Avijit Roy, the learned counsel for the State of Assam,  

however, has supported the judgments of the courts below.

It is true that an extra judicial confession  is a very weak  

piece of evidence and ordinarily a conviction solely on the basis  

of such evidence cannot be maintained.  The confession,  made by  

the appellant to PW 7, however, falls in a different category.  A

4 reading of the evidence of PW 7 clearly reveals that her house  

was about 100 yards away from the murder site and that when she  

had come out from her house to throw the starch out of the cooked  

rice, she had seen three persons running away from the house of  

the deceased and that a little later, the appellant - accused had  

come to her house carrying a dao and addressing her as Didi had  

told her that he had murdered two persons and cautioned her not  

to  disclose  this  fact  to  anybody  otherwise  she  too  would  be  

killed,  

and  on  

account  

of  fear,  

she  and  

her  

husband  

had  left  

their  

residence  

and shifted to some other place.   We also see that the statement  

of PW 7 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C is almost in identical  

terms.   It  is  therefore  evident  that  the  extra  judicial  

confession was made in a different background in as much that as  

the  appellant  suspected  that  he  had  been  identified  by  the  

witness  he  had  returned  to  warn  her  not  to  divulge  any  

information to anyone.  The very proximity of the murder and the

5 extra judicial confession made to PW 7 speaks volumes as to its  

authenticity.   We  also  see  from  the  record  that  the  alleged  

murder weapon, a dao, had been recovered at the instance of the  

appellant.  It is true that the independent witnesses of the  

recovery  have  not  supported  the  prosecution,  but  we  have  no  

reason to doubt the evidence of PW 12 on this score.

 On an overall assessment of the facts the prosecution  

story is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

We  

thus  find  

no  merit  

in  this  

appeal  

and  the  

same  is  

dismissed.

The fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.7000/-.

       ........................J     (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.......................J (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

6 NEW DELHI

   MARCH 30, 2011

7