Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reversal of the appellant's acquittal for murdering his wife, a case resting on circumstantial evidence. Even assuming an extra-judicial confession to the village Police Patil was admissible, the witnesses gave only vague, omnibus words that could not be relied on. The discovery of the iron rod was not proved, motive alone could not sustain a conviction, and Section 106 of the Evidence Act could not be invoked because the prosecution had not first laid the foundational facts.
Issues
- Whether a confession made to a village Police Patil appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967 is barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and if admissible, whether the alleged extra-judicial confession was reliable.
- Whether the discovery of the iron rod was proved when the panch witnesses turned hostile and the Investigating Officer merely identified signatures on the panchnama.
- Whether motive and the death occurring inside the matrimonial home, with Section 106 of the Evidence Act, sufficed to convict the husband.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.
Provisions considered
- Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The Court traced the Bombay High Court's change of view, from Ram Singh (a Police Patil is a police officer) to the 2009 Full Bench in Rajeshwer (he is not). It left open whether that later view could be applied to a 1993 acquittal, and proceeded on the footing that the Police Patil was not a police officer and the confession was admissible. (¶¶ 19, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42)
- Sections 6, 13, 14 and 15, Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967Considered through the quoted High Court decisions describing the Police Patil's limited powers to apprehend, inquire and search under the supervision of the District Magistrate and without power to file a charge-sheet, which led the Full Bench to hold he is not a police officer for Section 25. (¶¶ 28, 29, 31)
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872The discovery of the iron rod from the house was held not proved: the panch witnesses did not support it, and the Investigating Officer only stated that he drew the panchnama and identified the signatures, which does not prove its contents. (¶¶ 20, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Though a husband accused of killing his wife at night inside the home must offer some explanation, the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts before invoking Section 106; absent those facts it cannot shift the entire burden onto the accused, as the High Court had done. (¶¶ 26, 53, 54, 55)
- Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction for murder recorded by the High Court on reversing the acquittal was set aside, the incriminating circumstances not being proved. (¶¶ 1, 11, 22, 56, 58)
Held
- Proceeding on the footing that a village Police Patil is not a police officer for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so that a confession to him is admissible, such an extra-judicial confession must still be shown to be true, trustworthy, voluntary and free of inducement or coercion before it can found a conviction. The Court left open whether the 2009 Full Bench view could be applied against an accused acquitted in 1993 when the contrary view prevailed. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37)
- Before relying on an extra-judicial confession the court must be satisfied of the exact words used, or words as nearly as possible; such a confession is a weak piece of evidence to be appreciated with great caution. Here the witnesses deposed only to an omnibus and vague statement, which did not amount to an extra-judicial confession, and the High Court erred in relying on it. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
- A discovery is not to be disbelieved merely because the panch witnesses turn hostile; it may be relied on if the Investigating Officer's evidence is believable and inspires confidence. But an officer who only says he drew the panchnama and identifies his and the panchas' signatures does not prove its contents, so the discovery of the iron rod could not be relied on. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50)
- Motive is a double-edged weapon; it cannot by itself sustain a conviction for murder and may only be considered together with other reliable incriminating circumstances. (¶ 51)
- The prosecution must prove its case on its own legs. Where a husband is alleged to have killed his wife at night inside the home, his failure to give a plausible explanation can count against him, but only after the prosecution has laid the foundational facts; without them Section 106 cannot be invoked to throw the burden of proving innocence on the accused. (¶ 55)
- With the extra-judicial confession and the discovery excluded and only motive remaining, the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant of murder. (¶ 56)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment convicting the appellant was set aside; the appellant, on bail, had his bail bonds discharged.