The inadmissibility of confessions made to the police and statements given during investigation, and the limitations on using such evidence for conviction.

P. Devadass, J.

The accused, who was sentenced to life u/s.302 IPC in the Sessions case in SC.No.28/2011 by the learned Sessions Judge No.II, Kanchipuram, seeks suspension of his said sentence.

2. Deceased Viji is alleged to have developed illegal intimacy with P.W.4, Pachaiammal, wife of the accused. On 28.11.2010, the deceased was murdered. For this, prosecution has prosecuted the accused.

3. There is no eye-witness to the killing. Prosecution sought to prove the case through circumstantial evidence.

4. Each circumstance must be 'incriminating' in nature. It must be 'proved'. The totality of such proved circumstances must form a 'complete chain' without any 'missing link' unerringly proceeding towards the accused as 'the author of the offence committed' [See NAVARASU MURDER CASE – INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMILNADU Vs. JOHN DEVID (2011(3) CTC 104), SK.YOSUF Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (2011(3)SCC(cvi)620) and THIRUPATHI Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAYANUR (2012 MLJ (Crl)289)].

5. The Sessions Judge No-II, Kanchipuram relied on the extra-judicial confession of the accused to P.W.4 Pachaiammal, statement of the accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the 'discovery evidence' and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the conviction has been recorded based on inadmissible evidence and thus the learned Sessions Judge No-II, Kanchipuram has passed illegal sentence.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although P.W.4, has turned hostile, her evidence has been relied on and Ex.P20 confessional statement of the accused to P.W.18 Inspector of Police also has been relied on to convict the accused and this is against all canons of Criminal Jurisprudence and it is as against basic Principles of Criminal Law.

8. On the other hand, Mr. V.M.R. Rajendiran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the learned Sessions Judge No-II, Kanchipuram, has given the verdict on his appreciation of the evidence adduced before him.

9. We have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the portion of the evidence pointed out by either side and also the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge No-II, Kanchipuram.

10. There are certain principles which are fundamental, which are also basis of Indian criminal law, namely, "no amount of confession made to police is admissible". [See section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and statement given to police during investigation cannot be used against the accused (See Section 161 Cr.P.C.). A statement given to police u/s.161 Cr.P.C., cannot be used to record a conviction is adumbrated in section 162 Cr.P.C. These are rudimentary principles of Criminal Law of this country.

11. In this case, the learned Sessions Judge No-II, Kanchipuram relied on the extrajudicial confession stated to have been given by the accused to P.W.4 and also culpatory statement of the accused in Ex.P20 recorded by the Police Officer P.W.18 for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

12. The prosecution version is that the accused after killing the deceased revealed to his wife/P.W.4 that he had killed her paramour. It will be "Extra-Judicial Confession" coming under section 24 of the Evidence Act, if it is proved to be genuine and voluntary. [See ALADI ARUNA MURDER CASE – S.ARULRAJA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU (2010(8)SCC 233 = 2010(3) MWN (Cri) 146), STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. RAJARAM (2003 (8)SCC 180) and SANJEEVAN @ REGU Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTHUKADAI POLICE STATION, K.K. DIST. (2012(3) MWN(Cri)388(D.B) = 2012(1) MLJ Cri 89]. But, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before the learned Sessions Judge No-II, Kanchipuram, P.W.4 had completely turned hostile, she denied that her husband had made such a statement to her.

13. During investigation, the Investigating Officer P.W.18 took P.W.4 to P.W.16 Tmt.Kanchana, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maduranthagam, who h