Important Point
Police Patil in the village is a police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act & confession made to him is inadmissible in evidence.

ORDER

D.D. Sinha, J.— Heard Mr. M.R. Daga, learned counsel for the Appellant-accused and Mr. Majumdar, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed on 29-9-1999 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions trial No. 38 of 1998, whereby the appellant-accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and was also directed to pay fine of Rs. 2000/-.

3. Mr. Daga, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that, in the instant case, though prosecution has examined number of witnesses to unfold the prosecution case for the offence charged against the appellant, the trial Court has mainly relied on the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused to Alka w/o. Prabhakar Kawalkar (P.W.3). It is contended that the trial Court has, in para 10 of the judgment, clearly stated that Alka (P.W.3) was Village Officer and was an independent witness before whom the accused admitted guilt of the offence and her testimony is fully corroborated by Bablu s/o. Madhavrao Ingle (P.W.4), besides the circumstances on record disclosed from the testimonies of Sahebrao Wailaji Wasu (P.W.1) and Prabhakar s/o. Pralhadrao Kawalkar (P.W.2). Mr. Daga, the learned counsel states that the trial Court, therefore, mainly relied on the evidence of extra judicial confession coupled with the testimonies of other witnesses for recording conviction against the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Mr. Daga, Adv. Further states that Alka (P.W.3), at the relevant time, was Police Patil of the village and therefore, she was a Police Officer for the purpose of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and the confession made to her by the accused is inadmissible in evidence and could not have been relied on by the trial Court. It is contended that if the evidence of extra-judicial confession is deleted, there is no other evidence adduced by prosecution to independently prove the case of murder against present appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the impugned order of conviction is unsustainable in law. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court reported in Vistari Narayan Shebe v. The State of Maharashtra1 as well as in Ram Singh v. State of Maharashtra2.

5. Mr. Mujumdar, learned A.P.P., on the other hand, contended that, in the instant case, prosecution has examined as many as eight prosecution witnesses to prove the charge of murder against the appellant and prosecution has succeeded in bringing home guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended by the learned A.P.P. that deceased Chhaya was wife of the appellant and was done to death by him by means of a sickle. It is contended that Sahebrao (P.W.1) is brother of deceased Chhaya who has lodged oral report (Exh. 30) immediately after the incident and on the date of incident itself, wherein he has disclosed that on 1-11-1997, at about 8.00 A.M., he was at his residence. At that time, brother of the accused namely Madhukar Bonde came to his house and informed him that accused Sanjay assaulted his wife. It is contended that Sahebrao (P.W.1) thereafter went to the house of appellant where he saw deceased Chhaya lying in the pool of blood. It is contended that in the examination-in-chief Sahebrao (P.W.1) has disclosed all these facts including that of taking deceased Chhaya to the hospital. It is contended that there are no material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of these witnesses.

6. Mr. Mujumdar, the learned A.P.P. further admits that, in the instant case, the entire prosecution case is primarily based on the evidence of extra-judicial confession made by the accused to Alka (P.W.3). It is contended that the testimony of Alka (P.W.3) reveals that on the day of incid