1. Conviction for murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code — Appeal against conviction based on circumstantial evidence and a confessional letter. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 142
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SARKAR, C.J.I., J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND R.S. BACHAWAT, JJ.
Sita Ram, Appellant
Versus
State of U.P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
M/s. K. L. Sharma and Harbans Singh, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. O. P. Rana, Advocate, for Respondent.
Advocates:
H.Singh, K.L.SHARMA, O.P.RANA
H.Singh, K.L.SHARMA, O.P.RANA
The judgment examines whether a written confession addressed to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. While the court split on the letter's admissibility, it affirmed that strong circumstantial evidence (motive, opportunity, and conduct) can independently sustain a murder conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act - Section 25 - Confession made to a police officer - Admissibility of a written confession addressed to a police officer but not made in their presence - If the police officer was not nearby when the letter was written or knew that it was being written, it would not be a confession made to a police officer and is therefore admissible. (Paras 7-8)
(B) Indian Evidence Act - Section 25 - Confession made to a police officer - Alternative view - A confession made to a police officer includes a confession made in a letter written to him and subsequently received by him - Presence or absence of the police officer near the accused is not decisive; such a confession is hit by the ban of Section 25. (Paras 10-12)
(C) Criminal Law - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Motive, opportunity, subsequent conduct, and false explanation - Sufficient material to sustain conviction even in the absence of a confessional statement. (Paras 2-6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including strained relations, the appellant's sole presence in the house with the deceased, his absconding after the incident, and a false alibi. A letter admitting the crime, addressed to a police officer, was recovered from the scene.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence, specifically motive, opportunity, and conduct, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The court was divided on whether the confessional letter was admissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Issues: Whether a written confession addressed to a police officer, but not made in their presence, constitutes a "confession made to a police officer" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The majority held that a letter addressed to a police officer is not a confession "made to" them if the officer was not present or aware of its writing. Conversely, the dissenting opinion held that any written communication intended for a police officer is barred by Section 25. Regardless of the letter's admissibility, the conviction was upheld based on the strength of the circumstantial evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Admissibility of a confessional letter addressed to a police officer — Whether such a letter constitutes a confession made to a police officer under Section 25, Evidence Act. (Para 7 )
3. Evaluation of circumstantial evidence including motive, opportunity, and conduct — Divergent judicial views on the interpretation of Section 25, Evidence Act regarding written confessions. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. A confessional letter addressed to and received by a police officer is a confession made to a police officer, rendering it inadmissible under Section 25, Evidence Act. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction sustained based on sufficient circumstantial evidence. (Para 9 , 14 , 15 )
6. Does a written confession addressed to a police officer fall under the bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act?
Yes, a confessional letter written to a police officer and subsequently received by them is considered a confession made to a police officer, regardless of whether the officer was present while the letter was being written. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. Is the physical presence of a police officer necessary for a statement to be deemed a confession made to a police officer?
No, the presence of the officer is not decisive. A confession can be made to a police officer via oral messages over telephone or radio, or written messages communicated through post or messenger. (Para 11 )
8. How should Section 25 of the Evidence Act be construed regarding the protection of the accused?
Section 25 is a wholesome protection for the accused and should be construed in its widest and most popular signification to give the enactment its fullest effect. (Para 12 )
Judgement
MUDHOLKAR, J. (On behalf of himself and A. K. Sarkar, CJI.): The Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaon, after convicting the appellant Sita Ram of an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Sindura Rani, has sentenced him to death. The High Court of Allahabad affirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence to one of imprisonment for life.
2. The fact that Sindura Rani met with a homicidal death is not in dispute. What is, however, contended on behalf of the appellant is that there is no evidence on the basis of which his conviction could be based. Admittedly there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. The prosecution, case against him rests on the following material:
(1) motive; (2) opportunity; (3) subsequent conduct; (4) false explanation; and (5) confessional statements
3. There is ample evidence on record to show that the relations between the appellant and his wife were very much strained, that the two were living apart and that this was because the appellant suspected that his wife was a woman of loose character. This evidence consists of the testimony of some near relatives and also of several letters written by the appellant to his wife Sindura Rani, to his mother-in-law Inder Kuar (P. W. 2) and to his brother-in-law Tilak Raj (P. W. 1). The appellant had denied that the letters were in his hand-writing but it has been found by both the Courts below that they were in fact written by him. The finding of each of the two Courts below that the relations between the appellant and his wife were strained because the appellant not merely suspected the fidelity of his wife but also charged her with unchastity being one of fact cannot be lightly permitted to be questioned in an appeal by special leave. No ground has been made out by learned counsel which would justify out looking into the evidence for ourselves.
4. Similarly, on the question of opportunity, Sindura Rani who had gone to stay with her people had been asked by the appellant to return home on the pretext that one of their children was ill and accordingly she arrived at kashipur where the appellant lived only 5 or 6 days prior to the incident. Since her return she and the appellant were the only two adult persons living in the house of the appellant. The only other person living with them was their daughter about two years old.
5. When the Sub-Inspector of Police arrived on the morning of September 15, 1962, after receiving a report that the appellant s house was locked from outside and the cry of a child from inside could be heard, found the outer door of the house locked. After breaking it open he found a lantern burring by the side of the dead body of Sindura Rani. From these facts the Courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had an opportunity to commit the murder of his wife Sindura Rani. The appellant s defence that he had gone to Punjab along with one Pritam Singh on September 13, 1962 and could return from there on September 19, has not been accepted by the two Courts below in the absence of any material to substantiate it.
6. In addition to these there is the fact that the appellant could not be found till September 19, on which date he surrendered himself before the Court. It would be reasonable to infer form this that he was absconding till this date. The explanation which the appellant gave concerning his absence has been rightly rejected as false. In the circumstances there was adequate material before the Courts below upon which his conviction could be based.
7. In addition to this circumstantial evidence the prosecution placed reliance upon Ex. Ka 9. This is letter, dated September 14, 1962 addressed to the Sub-Inspector and bears the signature of the appellant in Urdu. It reads thus:
"I have myself committed the murder of my wife Smt. Sindura Rani. Nobody else perpetrated this crime. I would appear myself after 20 or 25 days and then will state everything. One day the law will extend
