Village Police Patil Not Police Officer; Confession To Him Admissible As Extra Judicial Confession : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated that an extra-judicial confession is a “weak type” of evidence and thus requires a great deal of care and caution. Where extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and would lose its importance., the Court said while placing its reliance upon Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (1995) 4 SCC 259. The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan stated thus while overturning a judgment of the Bombay High Court reversing the acquittal of the present appellant/ accused for the offence of murder. To summarise, the prosecution alleged that the deceased was married to the appellant and their marital life was not very happy. One day all of a sudden, the deceased went missing. Her body was recovered from the house. Though the Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, this finding was reversed by the High Court. It was of the view that a Village Police Patil is not a Police Officer and thus the confession made before him would be admissible as an extra-judicial confession. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred the present appeal. At the outset, the Apex Court opined that even if the evidence is admissible, the same should be true & trustworthy in order to hold the accused guilty. Besides, the above extra-judicial confession should also be found to be free of any inducement, coercion etc. and it should be shown to have been made by the accused on his own free will and volition., the Court added. After perusing the accused's statement, the Court concluded that the same was vague and ambiguous and could not be counted as an extra-judicial confession. “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.,” the Court said. Moving forward, the Court addressed the issue of concealment of the weapon, which was seized in the presence of the panch witnesses. The Court reiterated that even if the panch witnesses are turned hostile, the oral evidence of an Investigating Officer can be relied upon if it inspires confidence. “However, unfortunately in the case on hand, all that the I.O. did was to depose that he had drawn the panchnama and in the end identified his signature on the same and that of the panch witnesses. This cannot be said to be proving the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the circumstance of discovery also cannot be relied upon.,” the Court held. The Court also opined that the prosecution can invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, only when it proves its case beyond reasonable doubt. As per this provision, if any fact is within the special knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is on him. Thus, if the prosecution has failed to establish the same, it cannot throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence. “The initial burden of proof is always on the prosecution. 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.” As far as motive is concerned, the Court said that it cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused for a serious offence like murder. Motive may be considered along with other pieces of reliable evidence in the form of incriminating circumstances., the Court opined. In view of this, the Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the present appeal. Case Name: SADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATIL v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1718 OF 2017Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 97 Click here to read the judgment

Village Police Patil Not Police Officer; Confession To Him Admissible As Extra Judicial Confession : Supreme Court

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags