Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of Fulan, the step-mother of the appellant. The Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara framed a charge in Sessions Trial No. 37/2016 alleging that on 29.04.2016 at about 11.15 pm, in the house of the deceased at Syndicate Camp Dongri (Bk), the appellant committed murder by giving axe blows on the neck and head. The prosecution examined eight witnesses and relied on documents including memorandum statement, seizure of axe and clothes, spot panchnama, post-mortem report, and chemical analyser report. The incident was reported by Pradip Shendre (PW2), who ran a grocery shop at Bazartola Dongri (Bk); his wife was the Police Patil of the village. According to the oral report (Exh.13), on 29.04.2016 at about 11.15 pm, the son of Gulab Pushpatode came to PW2's house and informed that he had committed murder and wanted to surrender. He disclosed his identity as Dushyant @ Gabbar Gulab Pushpatode and stated that he had killed his step-mother by axe. PW2 communicated this to his wife, who informed the police station. The investigating officer PSI Wadhive drew spot panchnama, collected blood and earth, arrested the appellant, and recorded his memorandum statement. Pursuant to that, the appellant led the police to his house and recovered a bloodstained axe from a water tank and bloodstained clothes from inside the house. The autopsy surgeon found two deep penetrating injuries on the right side of the head and right ear, caused by hard and sharp object, and opined that death was homicidal. The defence did not dispute the homicidal nature of death but challenged the appellant's authorship of the injuries. The court noted that there was no direct evidence and the prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence coupled with extra-judicial confession made to PW2. It referred to Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra for the five golden principles of circumstantial evidence and Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu for principles governing extra-judicial confession. The court scrutinised the extra-judicial confession and found that PW2 and the appellant had no prior acquaintance, visiting terms, family relations, or monetary transactions, making it improbable that the appellant would confess to a stranger. It relied on Sunny Kapoor v. State (UT of Chandigarh) to observe that an accused would not make extra-judicial confession to a person unknown. The court also noted that the information was transmitted to the Police Patil wife, who was not examined as a witness. The available excerpt ends during the court's analysis, and the final operative order is not provided.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Five Golden Principles - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - The prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the incident; court referred to Sharad Birdichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra which laid down five golden principles for evaluating circumstantial evidence; held that the complete chain of circumstances must be established to point unerringly to guilt (Paras 9-10). B) Evidence - Extra-Judicial Confession - Reliability and Corroboration - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - The court extracted principles from Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu that extra-judicial confession is weak evidence, must be voluntary, truthful, inspire confidence, and be corroborated by cogent circumstances; it should not suffer from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and must be proved like any other fact (Paras 11-12). C) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession to Stranger - Improbability and Lack of Trust - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - The court noted that PW2 did not know the appellant previously, had no visiting terms, no family or monetary relations, and therefore no reason for appellant to confide in a stranger; relied on Sunny Kapoor v. State (UT of Chandigarh) that an accused would not make extra-judicial confession to a person unknown; held that such confession did not inspire confidence (Paras 13-15). D) Criminal Law - Role of Police Patil - Non-examination of Wife Police Patil - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 - The court observed that the alleged confession was made to PW2 who transmitted it to his wife, a Police Patil, and that a Police Patil is a respectable person with a role in dispute resolution; noted that the wife Police Patil was not examined as a witness, which left a gap in proving the confession (Paras 16-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was the author of the homicidal injuries found on the dead body of Fulan, based solely on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra-judicial confession made to PW2-Pradip Shendre; and whether the prosecution proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the provided excerpt; the court was in the process of scrutinising the extra-judicial confession and had cited principles indicating it found the confession unreliable, but final operative order is unavailable.
Law Points
- extra-judicial confession is weak evidence
- must be voluntary
- truthful
- inspire confidence
- corroborated by other prosecution evidence
- circumstantial evidence must complete chain and satisfy five golden principles
- confession to stranger improbable
- Police Patil role in dispute resolution
