The admissibility and reliability of extra judicial confession as evidence, the requirement for corroboration by independent witnesses, and the burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, CJ. - This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 12th January, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhawanipatana in Sessions Case No.28/1 of 2010 convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for two years.

2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Purna Chandra Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. J. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate for the StateRespondent.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 13th October, 2009 Anirudha Gouda (PW 1), husband of the deceased and the father of the Accused went to purchase kerosene oil and returned at around 9 am by which time the accused also returned. PW 1 again went out at 10 am and returned at 12.30 pm at which time the accused was sleeping. PW 1 again went for work at around 2 pm. At around 3 pm Arakhita Gouda (PW 7), the younger brother of PW 1 informed PW 1 that the accused was quarreling with his mother Sanjana Gouda, the deceased. By the time, PW 1 reached the house along with Chintamani Nayak (PW 4), Suresh Majhi (PW 5), RajibMajhi (PW 8), KhageswarChandan and Sadhu, they found the dead body of the deceased inside the room and one tangia was lying next to her. The accused was seen moving at a distance and at that point in time PWs 4, 5, 6 and 8 brought the accused and on being asked, he disclosed that he had committed the murder of the deceased. Thereafter, PW 1 reported the matter to the Police.

4. NilamaniParida, the Inspector In-Charge (IIC), Narla Police Station (PS) (PW 10) received the information about the aforementioned murder that had taken place in village Terlo and made an S.D. Entry on 13th October, 2009 and proceeded to the village for the inquiry. He then formally registered P.S. Case No.72 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC. PW 10 seized the Tangiawith wooden handle on its production by PW 1 and prepared a seizure list. On the following day, at 10 am PW 10 held an inquest on the dead body of the deceased, Sanjana Gouda and prepared an inquest report. The body was then sent for post mortem. At 1 pm, he arrested the accused and thereafter seized the wearing apparels. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the aforesaid mentioned offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. For the prosecution, 10 witnesses were examined and none for the defence. The confession of the accused was recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

6. The case having been based on circumstantial evidence, the extra judicial confession by the Appellant before PW 1 formed an important link in the chain of circumstances. The trial Court on an appreciation of the evidence, concluded that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the Appellant beyond all reasoned doubt for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

7. Since one of the key links in the chain of circumstances, is the extra judicial confession of the Appellant, it is important to recapitulate the settled legal position in that regard as explained in the following decisions.

8. The Supreme Court of India in Magar Singh(1975) 4 SCC 234 held as under:

'5. The second contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that there was no material corroboration of the statement of the approver and the High Court had convicted the appellant on the basis of the extra-judicial confession made by the two accused before some persons but that could not in law be regarded as any corroboration at all, because one tainted evidence cannot corroborate another tainted evidence.

The evidence furnished by the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be termed to be a tainted evidence and if corroboration is required it is only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made & i