1965 (2) TMI 134 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on circumstantial evidence.
- Admissibility of a soliloquy as an extra-judicial confession.
- Interpretation of the term "confession" in criminal cases.
- Weight of a confessional soliloquy as direct evidence.

Analysis:

The case involved the appellant, accused of killing his daughter-in-law, based on circumstantial evidence. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of death imposed by the Sessions Judge. The circumstances included the accused's illicit connections with the deceased, quarrels between them, and witnesses seeing the accused leaving the house after allegedly admitting to the murder. The Supreme Court noted the well-settled rule on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the need for facts to be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and conclusive enough to exclude other hypotheses. The Court addressed the issue of whether the accused's soliloquy admitting guilt constituted an extra-judicial confession, which was crucial in this case.

The Court delved into the definition of a confession in criminal cases, emphasizing that a confession is a statement by an accused admitting guilt, whether communicated to another or not. The Court cited relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and established that a statement admitting guilt is a confession, even if not communicated. However, the Court highlighted the distinction between admissibility and the weight of such evidence. A confessional soliloquy, being direct evidence, required precise establishment of the exact words used by the accused and could only be used as corroborative evidence, not the sole basis for conviction.

Regarding the weight of evidence in this case, the Court found that the circumstances, along with the extra-judicial confession through the soliloquy, pointed conclusively to the accused's guilt. The Court noted that no other reasonable hypothesis could be suggested based on the evidence presented. The witnesses' accounts of hearing the accused's admission of the murder further corroborated the circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision on both conviction and sentence, dismissing the appeal and affirming the death penalty imposed on the accused.