Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sheshreddi Changati, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. The appellant was originally tried under Section 302 IPC for murder, but the trial court gave him the benefit of Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC, holding that he acted in private defence but exceeded it. The incident occurred on 4th October 2009 when the deceased, Mulchand Moharkar, came to the appellant's hut in a drunken condition, abused him, and caught him by the neck. During the scuffle, the appellant picked up an iron pipe and inflicted three blows on the deceased's head, causing his death. The prosecution's case relied heavily on an extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before two witnesses, PW1 and PW2, wherein he admitted to hitting the deceased but claimed he did so because the deceased was trying to strangulate him. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the extrajudicial confession was a qualified admission, not a clear confession, as it included a claim of self-defence. Moreover, the witnesses were not independent and their testimony was inconsistent. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and thus the conviction was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Extrajudicial Confession - Qualified Admission - A statement made by the accused before witnesses that he assaulted the deceased because the deceased initiated the assault and tried to strangulate him is a qualified admission, not a confession, and cannot be the sole basis for conviction - The court held that such a statement does not amount to a confession as it includes a claim of self-defence (Paras 2, 6-8). B) Criminal Law - Right of Private Defence - Exceeding Right - The trial court accepted that the appellant acted in private defence but exceeded it, convicting under Section 304 Part I IPC - The High Court held that the evidence of extrajudicial confession was unreliable and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, thus the conviction was set aside (Paras 1, 9-10). C) Evidence Law - Extrajudicial Confession - Reliability - The prosecution witnesses who claimed to have heard the confession were not independent and their testimony was inconsistent - The court held that such evidence cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether conviction can be based on an extrajudicial confession which is a qualified admission of the fact in issue, and whether the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding such confession is acceptable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant ordered to be released forthwith.
Law Points
- Extrajudicial confession
- Qualified admission
- Right of private defence
- Exceeding right of private defence
- Section 304 Part I IPC
- Section 302 IPC
- Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC
