Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice R Mahadevan, Supreme Court
Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before 'Village Police Patil' Admissible in Evidence; Not Hit By Section 25 Evidence Act: Supreme Court
|The appeal before the Apex Court arose from the judgment of the Bombay High Court allowing the acquittal appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra.
The Supreme Court upheld an order of acquittal passed in favour of a man in his wife’s murder case while clarifying that Police Patil of the Village cannot be termed as a Police Officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and extra-judicial confession made before him will be admissible in evidence.
The appeal before the Apex Court arose from the Judgment of the Bombay High Court allowing the acquittal appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra and setting aside the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the appellant - (original accused) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 respectively of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan explained, “Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt & that too on its own legs. The initial burden of proof is always on the prosecution.”
Factual Background
The deceased woman was married to the appellant herein. A son was born in the wedlock. However, their marital life was not happy as the appellant doubted the chastity of his wife. One day all of a sudden, the deceased went missing. Her maternal uncle informed the Village Police Patil about the same. The Police Officer found the dead body of the deceased lying in one corner of the house of the appellant.
The postmortem examination report noted that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant strangulated his wife to death with the help of an iron rod. The appellant was arrested in connection with the First Information Report lodged by the Official for the offence of murder. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant after considering the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before the Police Official in the presence of his sister-in-law. When the State filed the appeal, the High Court held the appellant guilty and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the Appeal.
Reasoning
The Bench noticed that while reversing acquittal, the High Court had relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Rajeshwer S/o Hiraman Mohurle vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) wherein it was observed that a Village Police Patil is not a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act and any confession made before him would be admissible in evidence as an extra-judicial confession.
“We proceed on the footing that PW 2 – Vasant Dattu Bhosale, Police Patil of the Village cannot be termed as a Police Officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. We also proceed on the footing that the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused before PW 2 is admissible in evidence and is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. However, such extra-judicial confession should be found to be true & trustworthy before it is relied upon by the Court to hold the accused guilty”, the Bench said.
On a perusal of the exact words alleged to have been uttered by the appellant – in the form of an extra-judicial confession, the Bench observed that a very omnibus & vague statement seems to have been made as deposed by both the witnesses in their oral evidence. “In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the view that the High Court fell in error in relying upon the extra-judicial confession even while rightly holding that the same was admissible in evidence as Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer”, it added.
Moreover, the panch witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution and they failed to prove the contents of the discovery panchnama. “Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be disbelieved. From the plain reading of the oral evidence of the Investigating Officer if the discovery is believable and inspires confidence, the same can definitely be looked into as one of the incriminating pieces of evidence against the accused”, the Bench further clarified.
As per the Bench, the circumstance of discovery couldn't be relied upon as I.O. only deposed that he had drawn the panchnama and in the end identified his signature on the same and that of the panch witnesses. This couldn’t be said to be proving the contents of the pathnama in accordance with law. Further, on the aspect of motive, the Bench said, “Motive is a double-edged weapon. Motive cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused and that too for a serious offence like murder. Motive may be considered along with other pieces of reliable evidence in the form of incriminating circumstances.”
The Apex Court also clarified, “However, in cases where husband is alleged to have killed his wife in the night hours & that too within the residential house, then undoubtedly the husband has to offer some explanation as to what had actually happened and if he fails to offer any plausible explanation, this can go against him. However, Section 106 of the Evidence Act is subject to one well-settled principle of law. The prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it cannot starightaway invoke the said Section and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence.”
Thus, noting that the High Court committed an error in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder, the Bench allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 93)