9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (9) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. There is also evidence that the deceased was of loose conduct with others as well, and this. is spoken to by P.Ws. 2 and 4. The suggestion for prosecution is that sexual jealousy probably motivated the appellant to commit this crime. On Wednesday, 11 -3 -1959, the appellant and the deceased were seen by Sambandaitn, P.W. 8 proceeding towards the eastern portion of the -village, the appellant then having an aruval. After that, the victim was not seen alive by anyone. ( 3. ) Though Pappal thus disappeared, neither her' mother P.W. 1, nor any one else, seems to -have suspected anything gravely amiss. But at about 4 -25 p. m, on 13th March, the appellant appeared before Mr. Raghavachari, P.W. 7, the Judicial. Sub Magistrate of Papanasam, while the officer was in his court hall. The appellant then surrendered himself, after making a statement that he had murdered Pappal on the 11th March. It is important to note that both the mother of the victim, P.W. 1, and the police came to know of this offence only through learning about the statement of the accused to the magistrate. The subsequent', report of P.W. 1 to the village head ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ospy revealed only a simple incised wound. But, as the (learned sessions Judge, points out, this was not followed up, as it ought to have been done, by cross -examining the medical officer P.W. 9 On the point whether more than one cut with an aruval could have caused the injury set forth in the post mortem certificate, Ex. P. 4. ( 5. ) Apart from all this testimony, there was come other evidence about another extra -judicial confession made by the appellant on the night of the 11th March itself at about 10 p.m, to one Mani, P.W. 6. P.Ws. 5 and P.W. 6 speak to this confession, but the learned Sessions Judge did not take this evidence into consideration, because these witnesses were not examined till the 14th March and they did not earlier report the admission of the crime by the accused, either to the police, or even to the mother, P.W. 1. We are not dear that this confession should be necessarily disbelieved on this account, and it is noteworthy that q definite hostility is suggested against these witnesses. But, in view of the ample evidence in this case connecting the accused with the crime, this is not of great importance. ( 6. ) At the trial, the accused denied the illici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atement is to be excluded, we must further consider whether the prosecution can rely upon the conduct of the accused in unearthing the body etc. to corroborate the material facts of the retracted confession. ( 7. ) The scheme of Sections 21 to 27 of the Evidence Act, when examined, shows that this group of Sections relates to admissions, of which a confession by an accused is a species, and to certain circumstances which may prohibit the proof of such confessions or admissions. A confession is a kind of admission, and there is no clear -cut line of demarcation between the two. Again, admissions may be relevant in civil as well as in criminal cases and, as observed by Horwill J. in Titus, in re,, 54 MLW 81:, A.I.R. 1941 Mad 720, admissions that might be proved in civil cases, are not inadmissible in criminal cases as such. An extra -judicial confession is merely a confession made outside the scope of a judicial confess ion recorded during the investigation of a crime by a magistrate, after complying with the formalities of1 Section 164 Crl. P. C. The weight to be accorded to such a confession would depend entirely upon the context of circumstances, the person to whom it was made, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistrate after the murder and confessed the occurrence, and the confession was not recorded Under Section 1G4 Crl. P, C. for the very good reason that the magistrate was not then concerned with the investigation of the crime, the statement was admissible, both as a report of first information and otherwise under the law relating to admission. The true scope and applicability of is also indicated here.' ( 8. ) Hence , upon this aspect, we must conclude that the present extra -judicial confession is admissible, both upon the law relating to admissions, and as a report of first information. As the magistrate was not then concerned with the investigation of this murder, the procedure Under Section 164 Crl. P. C. was not adopted, and no infirmity attaches to the statement because of this fact. The Weight to be given to such an extra -judicial confession depends entirely upon the circumstances under which it was made. Where, as in this case, it was spontaneously made by an accused, to a magistrate, who was not even aware of the identity of the person appearing before him, or of the fact that any murder had occurred, the confession is certainly entitled to very great weight, unless ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case will continue to be law. The cases of this Court that bear upon this particular question of the nature of the custody, generally assume that unless the accused be in police custody formally authorised, or in such custody after arrest, Section 27 would not apply. Thus, in Peria Gumsami Counter v. Emperor, 1941 MWN Crl 94 :, A.I.R. 1941 Mad 765, Wadsworth and Somayya JJ. held that Section 27 did not apply to a statement made by an accused to a police officer, before the deponent came into the formal custody of that officer. Similar dicta are to be found in Kambala Kalikamurthi,, 1936 MWN Cr. 159. In In re, Kamakshi Naidu, I.L.R. 1943 Mad 456 :, A.I.R. 1943 Mad 89, Horwill J. held that a confession made by an accused in police custody was admissible Under Section 27, though the custody itself was not in connection with the offence relating to which the confession was made, but in connection with another offence. ( 10. ) But we find a different line of cases, particularly of the Calcutta, Allahabad and Niigpu High Courts, where a definite attempt has been made to apply a less rigid interpretation to the expression custody occurring in Section 27. If that interpretation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considerably minimised. Apart from this, we see no reason at why the expression relating to police custody occurring in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act should be rigidly interpreted. After all, what the spirit of the language employed appears to imply is that, where a person submits himself to the custody of a police officer, with the consciousness that temporarily at least he is in such custody, or such control, whether formally authorised in some manner or otherwise, the information Riven by him to such officer, leading to the discovery of a relevant fact, may be proved within the scope of the Section. To limit the meaning of the expression further, by imposing conditions as to the time of arrest, the existence or absence of a formal magisterial order authorising police custody or interrogation, etc., does not seem to be justified either by the context, or by any -Inherent feature of the scheme of Sections 25 and 26, to which Section 27 clearly constitutes a proviso or exception. Please see the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramkishan v. : 1955CriLJ196 . ( 11. ) Therefore , we would conclude that the statement made by the accused to the Circle Inspector, in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
