Witness Not a ‘Tape Recorder’ for Extra-Judicial Confession; Delay Due to ‘Terror’ No Ground for Acquittal: Bombay High Court

“A witness is not a tape recorder to reproduce the exact words... It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence.” - In a significant judgment reinforcing the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions and the credibility of witnesses in high-threat scenarios, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the criminal appeals of six convicts. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande, confirmed the life sentences for a savage public execution involving 65 ante-mortem injuries.

The case stems from a harrowing incident on January 19, 2011, in the Timki area of Nagpur. The victim, Dinesh, was intercepted by an unlawful assembly of six men armed with lethal weapons, including swords, guptis, and knives. Motivated by a prior financial dispute, the accused executed the victim in public view. The post-mortem report revealed the sheer brutality of the assault, documenting 65 injuries, including multiple chop wounds and deep stab wounds to vital organs.

Extra-Judicial Confession: Substance Over Syntax
A cornerstone of the prosecution's case was an extra-judicial confession made by accused Devanand Kuhikar. Shortly after the murder, Kuhikar smashed a window pane at the victim's residence and announced to the victim's family that they had killed Dinesh.

The defence challenged this evidence, arguing that the witnesses failed to reproduce the exact words used, rendering the confession weak. The High Court categorically rejected this submission. The Bench observed that a witness cannot be expected to act as a "tape recorder." The Court held that if the substance of the statement is clear, unambiguous, and inspires confidence, it constitutes admissible evidence.

Witness Credibility Amidst ‘Terror’
The defence further attacked the prosecution's case based on a three-day delay in recording the statement of a key eyewitness (PW5). The Investigating Officer submitted that the brutality of the crime had created a law and order situation, instilling immense terror in the locality which silenced witnesses temporarily.

Accepting this rationale, the Court noted that in cases involving local goons or savage public killings, a "tensed situation" is natural. The Bench ruled that a delay attributed to the fear of the accused does not automatically render eyewitness testimony unreliable, particularly when the witness is a natural resident of the area.

Vicarious Liability under Section 149 IPC
The Court invoked Section 149 of the IPC to hold all six accused vicariously liable. Despite defence arguments that specific fatal injuries were not attributed to individual accused, the Bench ruled that the formation of the assembly, the possession of deadly weapons, and the magnitude of injuries demonstrated a clear common object to kill.

“The mere presence of an accused in such an unlawful assembly is sufficient to render him vicariously liable under Section 149 of IPC for causing the death of the victim.”

Defective Investigation vs. Substantive Evidence
The Bench also addressed lapses in the police probe, such as delays in forensic analysis. While acknowledging the investigation was "faulty" in parts, the Court held that defective investigation is not a valid ground for acquittal when substantive evidence—ocular, medical, and circumstantial—points unerringly to guilt. The recovery of blood-stained weapons (Group "B") under Section 27 of the Evidence Act further corroborated the prosecution's case under the "doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events."

Finding the chain of evidence complete and the ocular testimony corroborated by medical and forensic proofs, the High Court dismissed the appeals. The accused were directed to surrender immediately to serve the remainder of their life sentences.

Date of Decision: 14/01/2026