A confession made by an accused person is not admissible in evidence against him, except to the extent that it leads to the discovery of a fact.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - SECTION 302, I.P.C. - CONFESSION - ADMISSIBILITY - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - CORROBORATION - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the appellant suspected his wife of having an illicit relationship with another man and that he killed her in a fit of rage. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he had found his wife dead when he returned home.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the appellant was admissible in evidence only to the extent that he had lodged it and that he had placed his blood-stained clothes and the axe near the cot of the deceased victim. The court further held that the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before a witness was not proved and could not be acted upon in the absence of corroboration from an independent source. The court also held that the recovery of the various articles in consequence of the information of the appellant or at his instance did not constitute any incriminating evidence against him.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR lodged by the appellant was admissible in evidence against him. 2. Whether the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before a witness was proved. 3. Whether the recovery of the various articles in consequence of the information of the appellant or at his instance constituted any incriminating evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the FIR lodged by the appellant was admissible in evidence only to the extent that he had lodged it and that he had placed his blood-stained clothes and the axe near the cot of the deceased victim. The court relied on the provisions of Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Evidence Act, which exclude confessions from being admitted in evidence, and Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the admission of information leading to the discovery of a fact. 2. The court held that the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before a witness was not proved and could not be acted upon in the absence of corroboration from an independent source. The court relied on the principle that an accused can be convicted on the basis of an extra-judicial confession even without corroboration, provided that the witness speaking about the extra-judicial confession has credentials of truth and his testimony is above board and free from suspicion. However, in the instant case, the court found that the witness was not credible and that his testimony was not corroborated by any independent source. 3. The court held that the recovery of the various articles in consequence of the information of the appellant or at his instance did not constitute any incriminating evidence against him. The court relied on the principle that the recovery of blood-stained articles at the instance of the accused is only a circumstance to be taken into consideration and that it cannot lead to the conclusion that the accused had killed his wife.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of the appellant, set aside his conviction and sentence, and acquitted him of the charges.

JUDGMENT

1. - Mahideetasingh the appellant was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by his judgment dated November 4, 1981. He has come-up in appeal and challenges his conviction.

2. Put briefly, the prosecution case is that the accused and his wife Smt. Gurtej Kaur (the deceased-victim) were residents of Chak 54-F. The accused and PW 1 Roopsingh were sharers-crop with Balbirsingh and were working in his field situated in Mauja Maceasar PS Padampur district Sri Ganganagar in the year 1981. Smt. Gurtej Kaur, aged about 22 years at the time of the incident, also, used to work along with her husband in the fields of Balbirsingh. The accused suspected his wife having illicit relations with Balbirsingh. Five days before the incident, while the accused and his Wife were working in the field of Balbirsingh, he noticed Balbirsingh talking merrily and cracking jokes with Smt. Gurtej Kaur. Smt. Gurtej Kaur was then plucking cotton bolls in the field. She was running here and there and Balbirsingh was following her. This further strengthened the accused's suspicion. In the evening, he asked her as to what was the matter. She confessed before him that she was in illegal intimacy with Balbirsingh for the last five months. She did not disclose this fact to him as she was threatened by Balbirsingh that in case she disclosed this intimacy to the accused, he would put her and the accused to death. The accused asked her to get Balbirsingh caught red handed with her. She promised to do so. However, she did not keep her words. This enraged the accused. In the noon of February 7, 1981, while the accused and his wife Smt. Gurjet Kaur were in their Kotha, he picked up an axe and inflicted blows with it on her neck. As a result, Smt. Gurjet Kaur met instantaneous death on the spot. The accused closed the Kotha, locked it and went to PW I Roopsingh, who was then working in the field of Bilbirsingh. The accused narrated the incident to him and stated that he had killed his wife. He sought his advice as to what he should do. Roopsingh PW 1 advised him to go to the Police Station and report the matter there. The accused thereafter went to Police Station, Padampur and verbally lodged report Ex. P 24 at about 3.30 p.m on the same day. The police registered a case under Section 302, I.P.C. and took tip the investigation. The accused produced two keys which were seized and sealed by the Investigating Officer. The accused was also wearing Lungi (Article 1) which had stains of blood. It was also seized and sealed. The Investigating Officer Balwant Rai PW 7 arrested the accused. The accused made a disclosure statement, recorded in Ex. P 26, to the effect that he had placed his blood-stained shirt which he was wearing at the time of the incident and the axe with which he inflicted the blows near the cot of the deceased in his Kotha. The Investigating Officer took the accused to his Kotha where the lock was opened. The axe (Article 3) and the blood stained shirt were found near the cot on which was lying the victim's dead body. All these articles were seized and sealed. The investigating officer prepared the inquest report and Panchnama of the dead body. The post-mortem examination over the victim's dead body was conducted by PW 4 Dr. Iqbalsingh the then Medical Officer Incharge, Government Dispensary, Padampur. He noticed the following injuries on the victim's dead body:

External

(1) Incised wound 51/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 3 c m. anterior of neck at thyroid cartilage transversally;

(2) Incised wound 6/1-2 c.m. x 3/1-2 c.m., transversally anterior-right lateral to neck 3/4 c.m. interior to injury No, 1;

(3) Incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x 3 c.m. transversally anterior to right lateral of neck 1/1-2 cm. interior to injury No. 2;

(4) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 1 cm. anterior to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1987 Supreme(Raj) 466

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTShyam Sunder Byas, Ashok Kumar Mathur, JJ.Mahideeta Singh - AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan - RespondentS.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 647 of 1981.Decided On : 6-02-1987

A confession made by an accused person is not admissible in evidence against him, except to the extent that it leads to the discovery of a fact.

Cases Referred (1)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Shyam Sunder Byas, Ashok Kumar Mathur, JJ.
Mahideeta Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 647 of 1981.
Decided On : 6-02-1987