Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court  has reiterated that an extra-judicial confession must be true, trustworthy, and free from any inducement or coercion before it can be relied upon to establish the guilt of an accused in a criminal case. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered this observation while allowing an appeal filed by Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil against the Bombay High Court’s judgment, which had reversed his acquittal and convicted him of murdering his wife.

Case Background

The case originated from the alleged murder of the appellant’s wife, Lata, on October 20, 1990. According to the prosecution, the appellant suspected his wife’s fidelity, and the strained marital relationship culminated in her death by strangulation. Her body was discovered in their house, and the post-mortem report indicated asphyxia due to strangulation, allegedly involving an iron rod. The trial court acquitted the appellant in 1993, disbelieving both the recovery of the iron rod and the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by him to the village police. The court ruled that the confession was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, the High Court overturned this decision in 2015, convicted the appellant formurder, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This prompted the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The apex court proceeded on the assumption that the extra-judicial confession was admissible in evidence, as the village police, in this instance, could not be categorized as a “Police Officer” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. However, the bench emphasized that the confession must be proven to be trustworthy and voluntary.

The court pointed out that there was no clarity in the exact words or even approximate words used in the alleged confession. The bench referred to the principles laid down in C.K. Ravindra vs. State of Kerala (2000), which require the exact or near-exact words of an extra-judicial confession to be presented to evaluate its voluntary nature. The court remarked, “What is alleged to have been conveyed cannot be said to be an extra-judicial confession. A very omnibus and vague statement seems to have been made as deposed by both the witnesses in their oral evidence.” Additionally, the bench highlighted the decision in Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (1995), observing that extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak forms of evidence that must be scrutinized with utmost care, especially if surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

Recovery of the Iron Rod

The prosecution’s case also relied on the recovery of the iron rod used in the crime. However, the Supreme Court noted that the panch witnesses had turned hostile, and the investigating officer merely deposed about the panchnama without proving its contents. The court remarked, “Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be disbelieved. However, the investigating officer failed to prove the panchnama in accordance with law.”

Motive and Section 106 Evidence Act

While the prosecution argued that the motive for the crime stemmed from the appellant’s suspicions about his wife’s fidelity, the bench observed that motive alone cannot form the sole basis for conviction in serious offences like murder. The court underscored that motive is a “double-edged weapon” and must be corroborated by other incriminating evidence. Addressing the State’s argument invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the court clarified that this provision can be applied only when the prosecution has laid a strong foundational basis for its case. “The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot straightaway invoke Section 106 to shift the entire burden onto the accused,” the court noted.

Verdict

Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the High Court had erred in relying on an untrustworthy extra-judicial confession and an unsubstantiated recovery of the weapon. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant’s acquittal was reinstated.

Cause Title: SADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATIL V/S STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1718 OF 2017

Date: JANUARY-09-2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan 

[Read/Download order]