Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25, 106 – Extra judicial confession – Admissibility – Extra judicial confession to Police Patil, if admissible – Appellant-husband charged for the murder of his wife – Extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to the village Police Patil – Trial court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable u/ss.302 and 201 IPC holding that extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to Village Police Patil was inadmissible as per s.25 – High Court set aside the acquittal and held the appellant guilty of the offence of murder – Correctness: Held: Police Patil of the Village cannot be termed as a Police Officer for the purpose of s.25 – Extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused before village Police Patil is admissible in evidence and is not hit by s.25 – However, such extra-judicial confession should be found to be true and trustworthy before it is relied upon by the Court to hold the accused guilty – Extra-judicial confession should also be found to be free of any inducement, coercion etc. and should be shown to have been made by the accused on his own free will and volition – What is alleged to have been conveyed cannot be said to be an extra- judicial confession – Very omnibus and vague statement seems to have been made – High Court erred in relying upon the extra-judicial confession even while rightly holding that the same was admissible in evidence as Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer – Panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case – Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be disbelieved – However, I.O. cannot be said to be proving the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law and the circumstance of discovery cannot be relied upon – Motive cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused – Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Initial burden of proof is always on the prosecution – However, in cases where husband is alleged to have killed his wife in the night hours and that too within the residential house, then undoubtedly the husband has to offer some explanation as to what had actually happened and if he fails to offer any plausible explanation, this can go against him – Prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke s.106 – It cannot straightaway invoke s.106 and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence – In view thereof, the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder – Impugned judgment set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201. [Paras 27, 31, 36-38, 42, 47-49, 50-51, 55, 56, 58]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.