Exculpatory statement

Accused was convicted for committing qatl-i-amd and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial Court on the basis of exculpatory confession of one co-accused who appeared as prosecution witness

Validity

Exculpatory confession of co-accused who appeared as prosecution witness was recorded on 19-12-2011 while he was arrested on 13-12-2011

Exculpatory statement was not believed to the extent of co-accused himself, who had been acquitted by Trial Court

Such exculpatory confession which had not been taken into consideration for conviction against its maker, i.e. the co-accused, could not be used against accused

On the basis of same evidence, four co-accused persons had already been acquitted and no appeal had been filed by complainant or the State

Supreme Court extended benefit of doubt to accused, set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted him of the charge, as there was no independent corroboration of evidence to his extent

Appeal as allowed.

Where prosecution evidence was found to be reliable and the exculpatory part of the accused person's statement was established to be false it had to be excluded from consideration

Inculpatory part of the accused's statement may be read in support of evidence of prosecution

Statement of convict was to be believed in its entirety as ocular account had been found unreliable

Conviction recorded by Trial Court was set aside.

Trial Court on the basis of confessional statements of convicted accused sentenced one to death, while the other was sentenced to imprisonment for life

Validity

Confessional statement of accused, if taken into consideration, one accused was simply shown to be present on the spot and did not participate in the commission of offence in any way nor any role was assigned to him except to the extent of common intention and Trial Court had sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life on such consideration, which was not correct

Sufficient confidence inspiring evidence was needed to prove common intention but no serious effort was made by prosecution to produce evidence of convincing nature to connect accused in commission of offence with co-accused

No act on the part of accused was proved to have done in furtherance of common intention

No motive was on record to show common intention with co-accused

Vicarious liability could not be looked into unless strong circumstances were available by exhibiting common intention

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to both the accused by Trial Court and they were acquitted of charges

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.