Back
1997 Supreme(Ori) 203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
A. Pasayat, S.C. Dutta, JJ.
LAIKHAN BATE - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE - RESPONDENT
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1993
Decided On : 08-07-1997
Mr. B.K. Sharma (Legal Aid), for the Appellant; Additional Standing Counsel, for the Respondent -
Extra-judicial confessions can be admitted in evidence and relied upon for conviction if they are voluntary and made in a fit state of mind, and if the witnesses to the confessions are credible and reliable.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Uxoricide - Extra-Judicial Confession - Admissibility - Voluntariness - Factors to be Considered - Reliability of Witnesses - Conviction Based on Extra-Judicial Confession.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of uxoricide and sentenced to life imprisonment based on extra-judicial confessions made before his son, brother, and a co-villager.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the extra-judicial confessions were voluntary and reliable, and that the accused's conviction was justified.
Issues: 1. Whether the extra-judicial confessions were voluntary and admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the witnesses to the extra-judicial confessions were credible and reliable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the extra-judicial confessions were voluntary because they were not made under any inducement, threat, or promise, and because the accused was in a fit state of mind when he made them. 2. The court held that the witnesses to the extra-judicial confessions were credible and reliable because they had no motive to falsely implicate the accused and because their testimony was consistent with the other evidence in the case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the accused's appeal and upheld his conviction and sentence.
JUDGMENT :
A. Pasayat, J. - In this appeal from jail Laikhan Bate (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of his conviction for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput, Jeypore. Allegation of uxoricide led accused to trial. Manika Bate (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was the victim.
2. Stated in brief, prosecution version is as follows:
On 25.9.1991 at about 5 p.m. the accused returned home and asked his wife (deceased) to serve food. As the deceased did not serve food, the accused got angry and caught hold of tuft of her hair and twisted, her neck was removed by the accused to his backyard where it was thrown. During assault, bangles of the deceased were broken and were lying on the floor. Then the dead body was seen by Lachhman Bate (P.W.1) son of the accused and other villagers including P.W.2 blood was found to be coming out from her nostrils and month. Accused confessed his guilt before several persons. The matter was reported at Malkangiri Police Station by P.W.2, brother of the accused, Investigation was conducted and on completion thereof, charge-sheet was placed.
Accused pleaded innocence during trial.
3. In order to fasten the guilt on the accused seven witnesses were examined. It was claimed that extra judicial confession was made by the accused before P.W.s 1, 2 and 4. Placing reliance on such extra-judicial confession learned trial Judge found the accused guilty, conviction was recorded and sentence was awarded as aforesaid.
4. In support of the appeal Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned counsel argued that the version relating to extra-judicial confession is not acceptable as P.Ws.1 and 2 did not state before the Investigation Officer during investigation about the so-called extra-judicial confession. In any event evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is a weak one and should not form basis of conviction.
Mr. R.K. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the judgment of conviction and sentence.
5. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short, the Evidence Act') deals with confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, which is irrelevant in criminal proceedings. The expressions 'confession' has not been defined in the evidence Act. A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. The law relating to confessions is to be found generally in Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Sections 162 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (described hereinafter as 'old code') Corresponding to identical provisions of 1973 Code described as 'Code' hereinafter). Confession is a specimen of admission, and is dealt with in Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act. A confession or an admission is evidence against the Maker of it, its admissibility is not excluded by some provision of law. Section 25 is imperative, and a confession made to a police officer under no circumstance is admission in evidence against the accused. The Section covers a confession made when he was free and not in police custody, as also the one made before any investigation has begun. The expression "accused of any offence" covers a person accused of an offence at the trial whether or not he was accused of the offence when he made the confession. The partial ban imposed by Section 26 relates to a confession made to a person other than a police officer. The absolute ban imposed by Section 25 on a confession made to a police officer is not qualified by Section 26. Section 27 is in the form of a proviso. It partially lifts the ban imposed by Sections 26. 25 and 26. The words of Section 16 of the Code are wide enough to include a confession made to a police officer in the course of an investigation. A statement of confession made in the course of an investiga
