NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has ruled that the doubtful conduct of an accused cannot be the sole criterion to convict him if there is no other evidence to prove his involvement in a crime and acquitted a murder convict who was sentenced to life imprisonment.Setting aside the trial court and high court’s order of conviction, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said: “In this context, we deem it necessary to sound a note of caution. While the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of Indian Evidence Act, it cannot, by itself, serve as the sole basis for conviction, especially in a grave charge such as murder. Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of the accused is merely one of the circumstances the court may consider, in conjunction with other direct or circumstantial evidence on record. To put it succinctly, although relevant, the accused’s conduct alone cannot justify a conviction in the absence of cogent and credible supporting evidence”.The trial court and Chhattisgarh high court had relied on the conduct of the accused, who had allegedly approached the police and lodged an FIR admitting that he committed the offence, to pronounce him guilty.But the apex court said an FIR of a confessional nature lodged by an accused person is inadmissible as evidence against him, except to the extent that it shows he made a statement soon after the offence, thereby identifying him as the maker of the report, which is admissible as evidence of his conduct under the Act. “Additionally, any information furnished by him that leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Act. However, a non-confessional FIR is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Act and is relevant,” the bench said.The prosecution told the bench that the accused himself had gone to the police station and lodged the FIR and he also led the investigating officer and the panchnama witnesses to a place where he had kept the clothes worn by him during the incident. These were enough to convict him, it submitted.The bench, however, rejected the plea and said, “The legal position, therefore, is this – a statement contained in the FIR furnished by one of the accused in the case cannot, in any manner, be used against another accused. Even against the accused who made it, the statement cannot be used if it is inculpatory in nature nor can it be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction unless its maker offers himself as a witness in the trial. The very limited use of it is, as an admission under Section 21 of the Act, against its maker alone, and only if the admission does not amount to a confession”.
