Appeal against a High Court judgment that overturned petitioner acquittal in a murder case. The prosecution’s case centered on circumstantial evidence, including an extra-judicial confession, the discovery of the weapon, motive, and the fact that the incident occurred within the home, placing a burden of explanation on the accused. The document further discusses prior High Court decisions regarding whether a Village Police Patil is considered a “Police Officer” under the Indian Evidence Act, which affects the admissibility of confessions made to them. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found errors in the High Court’s reasoning and allowed the appeal,setting aside the conviction.
(A) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/201 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 25 – Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967, Section 13, 15 – Appeal against conviction – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence -Extra judicial confession – Made to Police Patil – Admissibility in evidence – PW 2, Police Patil of the Village cannot be termed as a Police Officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act – 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 – Besides, the above such 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 – A very omnibus & vague statement seems to have been made as deposed by both the witnesses in their oral evidence – What is alleged to have been conveyed cannot be said to be an extra- judicial confession – 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.
(Para 36 to 42)
(B) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/201 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 27 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – Disclosure statement – It is the case of the prosecution that after the arrest of the appellant is said to have on his own free will and volition made a statement before the Investigating Officer and he was ready and willing to point out the place where he had concealed the weapon, i.e., the iron rod – Accordingly, the Investigating Officer along with two independent witnesses in the form of panchas went to the place as led by the appellant – The place was the house itself where the incident had occurred. According to the Investigating Officer, the appellant pointed out the iron rod which was lying in one corner of the house – The same was seized in the presence of the panch witnsses and was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis – Panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution – They failed to prove the contents of the discovery panchnama – If the panch witnesses are declared hostile then the prosecution is obliged to prove the contents of the said discovery panchnama through the evidence of the Investigating Officer – 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 – 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 la -. In such circumstances, the circumstance of discovery also cannot be relied upon.
(Para 42 to 50)
(C) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/201 – Appeal against conviction – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – Motive – Held that 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.
(Para 51)
(D) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/201 – Evidence Act, 1872, Section 106 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Appreciation of evidence – Non-offering of explanation by accused – Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court set aside by High Court – Submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house itself, i.e., the place where the family was residing and that in normal circumstances, the husband could be said to be the best person to explain as to what had happened to his wife on the date of the incident and in the absence of any such explanation, it could be said that the accused committed the crime as alleged – Held that 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 – 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 straightaway invoke the said Section and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence – In the overall view of the matter, convinced that the High Court committed error in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder – Impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court set aside.
(Para 53 to 58)
Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil V. State Of Maharashtra
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 93: (DoJ 09-01-2025)
