Read Time: 14 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that an extra-judicial confession should be found to be true and trustworthy before it is relied upon by the court to hold the accused guilty in a criminal case. The Court said that beside such a statement should be of free will and made on volition without any inducement and coercion.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan allowed an appeal filed by Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil against the Bombay High Court's judgment of July 3, 2015, which reversed his acquittal by the trial court in 1993 of the offence of killing his wife on October 20, 1990.

According to the prosecution, the marital life of the accused was not going well as he suspected her fidelity. Her body was found in the house. The post mortem report revealed she was strangulated to death allegedly with use of an iron rod.

The trial court disbelieved recovery of iron rod and the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before a village police, holding that it was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

The High Court, however, reversed the acquittal and held the appellant guilty of the offence of murder and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

Examining the appeal, the bench proceeded on the footing that the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused before village police is admissible in evidence and is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

"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," the bench said.

Besides, the court pointed out, such extra-judicial confession should also be found to be free of any inducement, coercion etc and it should be shown to have been made by the accused on his own free will and volition.

After having looked into the statement, the bench said, "We are convinced that what is alleged to have been conveyed cannot be said to be an extra judicial confession. A very omnibus and vague statement seems to have been made as deposed by both the witnesses (village police and another person) in their oral evidence."

Citing “C.K. Ravindra Vs the State of Kerala” (2000), the bench pointed out, this court had held that before placing reliance upon the extra-judicial confession, the court must be convinced as regards the exact words or even the words as nearly as possible. This court took the view that it would be difficult to rely upon the extra-judicial confession if the exact words or even the words as nearly as possible have not been reproduced, the said statement cannot be said to be voluntary, the bench said.

In such circumstances, the same may have to be excluded from the purview of consideration, it pointed out.

This court in “Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab” (1995) had held that 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 extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and would lose its importance, the bench pointed out.

"In such circumstances, we are of the view that the High Court fell in error in relying upon the extra-judicial confession even while rightly holding that the same was admissible in evidence as Village Police cannot be said to be a Police Officer," the bench said.

Coming to the second piece of the circumstance relied upon that was recovery of iron rod, the court noted panch witnesses were declared hostile and the Investigating Officer could not prove the recovery.

"The position of law in this regard is very clear. Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be disbelieved. From the plain reading of the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer if the discovery is believable and inspires confidence, the same can definitely be looked into as one of the incriminating pieces of evidence against the accused," the bench said.

However, the court pointed out, unfortunately in the case on hand, all that the IO did was to depose that he had drawn the panchnama and in the end identified his signature on the same and that of the panch witnesses.

"This cannot be said to be proving the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the circumstance of discovery also cannot be relied upon," the bench said.

The court which was then left with motive, which it said, is a double-edged weapon that cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused and that too for a serious offence like murder. "Motive may be considered along with other pieces of reliable evidence in the form of incriminating circumstances," it said.

The State counsel submitted that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house itself, and in normal circumstances, the husband could be said to be the best person to explain as to what had happened to his wife on the date of the incident.

Therefore, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it is for the accused to explain what had actually happened and in the absence of any such explanation, it could be said that the accused committed the crime as alleged, the counsel said.

"The law in this regard is well-settled. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that too on its own legs. The initial burden of proof is always on the prosecution," the bench said.

 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, the bench noted.

The court pointed out, Section 106 of the Evidence Act is subject to one well-settled principle of law.

"The prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it cannot straightaway invoke the said Section and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence," the bench said.

Allowing the appeal, the court held the High Court committed error in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder.

 

Case Title (download judgment): Sadasiv Dhondiram Patil Vs The State of Maharashtra