SCC Online Web Edition, © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 Monday, October 24, 2022 Printed For: Navami Krishnamurthy, Jindal Global University SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com © 2022 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Emphasis supplied] 74. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the State would submit that even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama the conduct of the appellant herein would be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the said Act, as this Court observed in A.N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, (2005) 7 SCC 714: “9. By virtue of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1979) 3 SCC 90 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 656 : AIR 1979 SC 400]. Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellants (Exts. P-15 and P-16) is not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under Section 8…..” [Emphasis supplied] 75. In the aforesaid context, we would like to sound a note of caution. Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder. Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of an accused is also one of the circumstances which the court may take into consideration along with the other evidence on record, direct or indirect. What we are trying to convey is that the conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction. 76. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we have reached to the conclusion that the evidence of discovery of the weapon and the blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused appellant can hardly be treated as legal evidence, more particularly, considering the various legal infirmities in the same. EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION 77. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.01.2010 the accused appellant is said to have visited the house of the PW-3, Babu Ram Hans at about 9 : 00 o'clock in the morning and sought his help. While seeking help from the PW-3, Babu Ram Hans, the accused appellant is said to have made an extra judicial confession that he had brutally killed his wife Sangeeta for not giving consent to him to marry Manju. The accused appellant is also said to have made an extra judicial confession to the PW-3, Babu Ram Hans that he had also killed his four daughters viz. Tulsi, Lakshmi, Kajal and Guddi and thereby had committed a huge mistake. The trial court and the High Court have believed the so called extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused appellant before the PW-3, Babu Ram Hans. However, the trial court as well as the High Court should have put a question to themselves before believing the extra judicial confession whether the accused appellant was a free man on 23.01.2010 so as to reach the house of PW-3, Babu Ram Hans at 9 : 00 o'clock in the morning and make an extra judicial confession. This is one of the basic infirmities we have noticed in the judgment of both the Courts. There is cogent evidence on record to indicate that on 22.01.2010, the accused appellant first visited the house of PW-1, Shambhu Raidas (first informant) and narrated about the incident. The PW-1, Shambhu Raidas thereafter lodged the First Information Report (FIR) at the police station and as