REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.576 OF 2010

RAM LAL     ….Appellant

VERSUS

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH          ….Respondent

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2010

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2010

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

These appeals arise out  of  the judgment  dated 22.12.2008

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Himachal  Pradesh  at  Shimla  in

Criminal Appeal Nos. 710-712 of 2000 in and by which the High

1

Court  affirmed  the  judgment  passed  by  the  trial  court  thereby

affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(C) read

with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under

Sections 409 and    477-A IPC and the sentence of imprisonment

imposed upon him.  

2. Briefly  stated  case  of  the  prosecution  is  that  accused was

employed as a Peon in the United Commercial  Bank in  January

1987.    He  was  assigned  the  job  of  the  Clerk  as  there  was  a

shortage of clerical staff in the bank and his job was of manning

Saving Bank accounts counter. His job was to receive money from

the account holders for deposit in Saving Bank accounts. He used

to make entries in their pass books in his own hand but would not

account money in the account books of the bank nor did he pass it

to the cashier.   It is alleged that neither the appellant filled the pay-

in-slips nor was any deposit made in the scroll, daily case receipt

book and the cash payment book maintained by the cashier and he

used to pocket that money. When the depositors approached him

for withdrawals of money, he would make fake credit entries in the

ledger accounts and fill in the withdrawal slips and submit the same

to the officer concerned for payment.  The Passing Officer misled by

the  fake  credit  entry  would  allow the  withdrawals.  This  way,  the

2

appellant  caused  wrongful  loss  to  the  bank  to  the  tune  of

Rs.38,500/- during the year 1994. When the fraud came to light, a

Committee of two officers namely, R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) and M.P.

Sethi was deputed to hold a preliminary enquiry and the Committee

noticed bungling of accounts by the appellant.  After that, Enquiry

Committee recommended thorough investigation in the matter. After

the preliminary enquiry,  FIR was registered against  the appellant

under Sections 409, 468, 471, 477-A IPC and under Section 13(1)

(C)  read  with  Section 13(2)  of  the Prevention of  Corruption Act,

1988 (PC Act, 1988).  After investigation, the appellant was charge

sheeted for the said offences.  

3. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined

thirteen  witnesses  and  produced  documentary  evidence.  Upon

consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court

held  that  the  appellant  in  his  capacity  as  a  public  servant,  had

misappropriated the money entrusted to  him,  in  discharge of  his

duty,  as  a  public  servant.  The  trial  court  convicted  him  for  the

offences under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the PC

Act, 1988 and Section 477-A IPC for falsification of accounts with

intent  to  defraud  the  Bank  and  he  was  sentenced  to  undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with a fine of

3

Rs.5,000/.  For the offence under Section 409 IPC, the appellant

was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five

years with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and all the sentences were directed

to run concurrently.  The appellant was, however, acquitted for the

offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC for the charge of forgery

by holding that the opinion expert is not precise.  Being aggrieved

by the conviction, the appellant preferred the appeal before the High

Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.  

4. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  contended  that  the

appellant was working as Peon in the bank and as per bank rules,

no  clerical  job  can  be  assigned  to  Peon/sub-staff  which  was

admitted by the officers of the bank viz. Prem Chand (PW-1), R.K.

Soni (PW-2), R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) and A.K. Gupta (PW-10).  It was

contended that when any particular job is assigned to an employee

different from his duty, then the Manager is supposed to issue office

order/duty sheet whereas in the present case, no office order/duty

sheet  was  placed  on  record  to  establish  that  the  appellant  was

assigned the clerical job as alleged.  The appellant mainly assails

the confessional  statement  contending that  he did not  voluntarily

make  any  confession  statement  and  the  confessional  statement

could not have been made the basis for conviction.

4

5. Learned counsel for  the State contended that the appellant

acted with dishonest intention to defraud the Bank by making false

credit and debit entries in the accounts of various account holders

thereby falsifying the account  books of  the Bank and the courts

below rightly convicted the appellant for defrauding the Bank and

the impugned judgment warrants no interference.

6. We  have  carefully  considered  the  rival  contentions  and

perused the impugned judgment and evidence and materials placed

on record.

7. In  his  evidence,  A.K.  Gupta (PW-10),  the then Manager  of

UCO Bank, Nerwa Branch had stated that the appellant who was a

Peon in the branch was performing the duties of  Cash Clerk for

shortage of staff.  He further stated that while the appellant was so

working as Cash Clerk, the appellant used to receive cash from the

depositors for depositing the same in their Saving Bank accounts

and used to make the entries in the Cash Book then and there and

return the pass book to the customers by pocketing the cash so

given to him without making any credit entry in the ledger.   A.K.

Gupta (PW-10) further stated that generally the pay-in-slip is filled in

by  the  depositor  himself;  but  in  order  to  pocket  the  money,

appellant-Ram Lal filled up the pay-in-slip. PW-10 further stated that

5

subsequently,  when  the  depositors  used  to  visit  the  Bank  for

withdrawal of the cash from their Saving Bank accounts, appellant-

Ram Lal used to make false credit entries in the ledger books and

after making the debit entries in their  accounts, he used to hand

over the cash to the customers.  

8. The duty of the Peon was, of  course, only to clean up the

office and other work in the office like moving files etc. There was, of

course, no office order in writing authorising the appellant to perform

the duties of Clerical Cadre. But in his evidence, A.K. Gupta (PW-

10) has stated that though there was no office order authorising the

appellant  to perform the work of  Clerical  Cadre,  he informed the

Head Office  regarding  the  appellant  for  performing  the  duties  of

Cash Clerk for want of shortage of the staff. In this regard, in his

evidence, R.C. Chhabra (PW-3), the then Deputy Chief Officer of

UCO  Bank  has  stated  that  the  Peon  like  appellant  was  not

authorised to do the work of Clerical Cadre. PW-3 has also stated

that A.K. Gupta (PW-10) and other officials of Nerwa Branch namely

S.S.  Rana,  B.S.  Guleria  were  negligent  in  their  duties  by  so

assigning the clerical  work to the appellant.   PW-3 was however

quick enough to add that it cannot be said that those officers (A.K.

Gupta  (PW-10),  S.S.  Rana  (PW-11)  and  B.S.  Guleria)  were

6

responsible for the act of committing fraud. There is no merit in the

contention  of  the  appellant  that  in  the  absence  of  office  order

authorising  him to  perform the  clerical  work,  he  cannot  be  held

responsible.

9. R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) was the then Deputy Chief  Officer of

UCO Bank,  Divisional  Office,  Shimla  who  inspected  UCO Bank,

Nerwa Branch during the relevant time.  R.K. Soni (PW-2) was the

Grade-I  Officer  at  Zonal  Office,  Shimla who also inspected UCO

Bank, Nerwa Branch in the year 1994.  R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) stated

that the appellant wrote confession statement in his own hand, in

the presence of M.P. Sethi and signed the same which formed part

of  his  report  Ex.-PW-3/A.   Eleven  sheets  are  the  tabulated

statements in respect of the Saving Bank accounts, in which fake

credit entries had been detected.  At the foot of these statements,

the appellant wrote in his own hand and under his signature, that he

had received the money from the account holders, named in the

statements,  for  being deposited in  their  accounts,  but  instead of

accounting  for  the  same in  the  respective  account  books  of  the

bank, the appellant misappropriated it and later on made fake credit

entries and forged the initials of the Manager.

7

10. After  the  preliminary  enquiry  was conducted,  the Divisional

Office nominated two senior officers namely, R.K. Soni (PW-2) and

H.O. Aggarwal, who submitted the report consisting of 202 pages,

which has been made part of the investigation report, Ex.-PW-2/A.

R.K. Soni (PW-2) deposed in his evidence that the writings at pages

(143)  and  (144)  of  report  Ex.-PW-2/A,  was  prepared  by  the

appellant-accused  voluntarily  in  his  own  handwriting,  in  his

presence and in the presence of his co-investigator H.O. Aggarwal

and the appellant-accused admitted having received money from

various account holders, for being deposited in their Saving Bank

accounts  and  having  made  entries  in  their  pass  books.  In  his

confession statement, the appellant also admitted that he did not

account for the money, but misappropriated the same and that when

the account holder visited the bank for the withdrawal of the money,

he  used  to  make  fake  credit  entries  in  the  ledger  folio  of  their

accounts and on the basis of those fake entries, withdrawals used

to be made.

11. Contention of the appellant is that the confession statement of

the appellant was not voluntary and PWs 2 and 3 were persons in

authority  who  have  pressurised  the  appellant  to  make  the

confession and therefore,  Ex.-PW-3/A and Ex.-PW-2/A cannot be

8

said to have been made voluntarily and cannot form the basis for

conviction.   

12. Placing reliance upon  Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra

(2007) 12 SCC 341, it was contended that extra-judicial confession

can only form basis of  conviction if  it  is  voluntary and person to

whom confession is made should be unbiased and not inimical to

the accused.  Learned counsel also placed reliance upon  Madan

Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and another (1992) 3 SCC 204 to

contend that extra-judicial confession of accused should not have

been  obtained  by  coercion,  promise  of  favour  and  should  be

voluntary  in  nature  acknowledging  the  guilt.   Learned  counsel

submitted that the officers who obtained extra-judicial confession of

the appellant (Exts.-PW-3/A and PW-2/A) had other vested interest

to act upon and the appellant being a Peon must have been allured

by the false hope of being absolved from the charges.   

13. Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the

court  must  ensure  that  the  same  inspires  confidence  and  is

corroborated  by  other  prosecution  evidence.  In  order  to  accept

extra-judicial  confession,  it  must  be  voluntary  and  must  inspire

confidence.  If the court is satisfied that the extra-judicial confession

is  voluntary,  it  can  be  acted  upon  to  base  the  conviction.

9

Considering the admissibility and evidentiary value of extra-judicial

confession, after referring to various judgments, in Sahadevan and

Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403, this court held

as under:-

“15.1. In  Balwinder Singh v.  State of Punjab  1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 this Court stated the principle that:  

“10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather  a  weak  type  of  evidence  and  requires appreciation  with  a  great  deal  of  care  and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious  circumstances,  its  credibility  becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.”

15.4. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the  admissibility  and  evidentiary  value  of  an  extra-judicial confession, this Court in State of Rajasthan v.  Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180 stated the principle that:  

“19.  An extra-judicial  confession, if  voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will  have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.” The Court further expressed the view that:  “19. … Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes  from  the  mouth  of  witnesses  who  appear  to  be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate  that  he  may  have  a  motive  of  attributing  an untruthful statement to the accused.…”

15.6. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604  held that:  

“29.  There  is  no  absolute  rule  that  an  extra-judicial confession can never be the basis of a conviction, although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma and Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore (1970) 2 SCC 105, Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 902, Sivakumar v. State By Inspector of Police (2006) 1 SCC 714 (SCC paras 40 and 41 : AIR paras 41 and  42),  Shiva  Karam  Payaswami  Tewari v.  State  of Maharashtra  (2009)  11  SCC  262 and  Mohd.  Azad alias Shamin v. State of W.B. (2008) 15 SCC 449]”

10

14. It is well settled that conviction can be based on a voluntarily

confession but the rule of prudence requires that wherever possible

it  should be corroborated by independent evidence. Extra-judicial

confession of  accused need not  in  all  cases be corroborated.  In

Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Another (1992) 3 SCC

204, this court after referring to Piara Singh and Others v. State of

Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 452 held that the law does not require that

the evidence of an extra-judicial confession should in all cases be

corroborated. The rule of prudence does not require that each and

every circumstance mentioned in the confession must be separately

and independently corroborated.  

15. As  discussed  above,  if  the  court  is  satisfied  that  if  the

confession is voluntary, the conviction can be based upon the same.

Rule  of  Prudence  does  not  require  that  each  and  every

circumstance  mentioned  in  the  confession  with  regard  to  the

participation of the accused must be separately and independently

corroborated.   In the case at hand, as pointed out by the trial court

as well as by the High Court, R.K. Soni (PW-2) and R.C. Chhabra

(PW-3) were the senior officers of the bank and when they reached

the bank for inspection on 23.04.1994, the accused submitted his

confessional  statement  (Ex.-PW-2/A).     Likewise,  in  the enquiry

11

conducted  by  R.C.  Chhabra  (PW-3),  the  accused  had  given

confession statement (Ex.-PW-3/A).

16. Contention of  the appellant  is  that  PWs 2 and 3 being the

higher officials, it cannot be said that the confession statement of

the  accused  has  been  made  voluntarily  and  it  must  have  been

under  the  inducement  or  under  false  promise  of  favour.   Mere

allegation  of  threat  or  inducement  is  not  enough;  in  the  court’s

opinion, such inducement must be sufficient to cause a reasonable

belief in the mind of the accused that by so confessing, he would

get an advantage. As pointed out by the trial court and the High

Court, though the confession statement has been initially made in

the  presence  of  R.C.  Chhabra  (PW-3)  and  M.P.  Sethi  by  the

appellant, no question was put to R.C. Chhabra (PW-3) that extra-

judicial  confession  (Ex.-PW3/A)  was  an  outcome  of  any  threat,

inducement  or  allurement.   The  statement  which  runs  to  eleven

sheets  has  been  held  to  be  made  by  the  appellant  voluntarily.

Likewise,  confession  statement  (Ex.-PW-2/A)  made  before  R.K.

Soni (PW-2) was in the handwriting of the appellant made in the

presence of R.K. Soni (PW-2) and H.O. Agrawal, the then Assistant

Chief Officer (Inspection).  Here again, it was not suggested to R.K.

Soni  (PW-2)  that  Ex.-PW-2/A  was  outcome  of  some  threat  or

12

pressure.  The trial court as well as the High Court concurrently held

that  the  confession  statements  (Ex.-PW-3/A and  PW-2/A)  were

voluntarily  made  and  that  the  same  can  form  the  basis  for

conviction.  We do not find any good ground warranting interference

with the said concurrent findings.

17. In so far as the conviction under Section 13(1)(c) read with

Section  13(2)  of  PC  Act,  1988,  the  appellant  was  sentenced  to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. For conviction under

Section  477-A  IPC,  the  appellant  was  sentenced  to  undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years.  For conviction under Section

409  IPC,  the  appellant  was  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous

imprisonment for five years.  The occurrence was of the year 1992-

94.   Considering  the  passage  of  time  and  the  facts  and

circumstance of the case, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on

the appellant is reduced to three years.

18. In  the  result,  the conviction  of  the appellant  under  Section

13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 and sentence of imprisonment of two years is confirmed.  The

conviction under Sections 477-A IPC and 409 IPC is confirmed and

the sentence of imprisonment under Section 409 IPC is reduced to

three years.  These appeals  are  accordingly  partly  allowed.   The

13

appellant shall  surrender himself  within four weeks from today to

serve the remaining sentence, failing which the appellant shall be

taken into custody.

…………….……………J.  [R. BANUMATHI]

…………….……………J.      [INDIRA BANERJEE]

New Delhi; October 03, 2018

14