http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SITA RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/1965

BENCH:

ACT: Indian  Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872),  s.  25-Confessional letter to Police Officer-Admissibility.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant was convicted for under under s.  302  Indian Penal  Code.   The  prosecution  relied  on  amongst   other materials, a letter.  The letter contained a confession  and was addressed to the Sub-Inspector. The appellant wrote  the letter with the intention that it should be received by  the Sub-Inspector, kept it near the dead body and left the house after  locking it. The lock was broken open and  the  letter was recovered by the Sub-Inspector. In appeal to this  Court the admissibility of this letter was challenged.      HELD: (Per Curium) There was sufficient material on the record,  apart from this letter, establishing the  guilt  of the appellant.      Per  Sarkar,  C.J.  and Mudholkar,  J:-The  letter  was admissible in evidence.      No  doubt,  the letter contained a confession  and  was addressed  to  a police officer. That could not  make  it  a confession  made to the Police officer which is  within  the bar created by s. 25 of the Evidence Act. The Police Officer was  not nearby when the letter was written or knew that  it was being written. In such circumstances quite obviously the letter  would  not  have been a  confession  to  the  police officer  if the words "Sub-Inspector" had not been  written. Nor it can become one in similar circumstances only  because the  words "Sub-Inspector" has been written there. It  would still  have not been a confession made to a  police  officer for the simple reason that it was not so made from any point of view. [267 H-268 B]      Per   Bachawat  J.,-The  letter  was  inadmissible   in evidence and was a confession made to a police officer. [268 D-E]      A confession to a police officer was within the bar  of s.   25,  though  it  was  not  made  in  his  presence.   A confessional letter written to a Police officer and sent  to him  by post, messenger or otherwise is not outside the  ban of  s.  2,5 because the police officer was ignorant  of  the letter at the moment when it was being written. [268 G]. R.   V. Hurribole, (1876) I.L.R. 1 Cal. 207, approved.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 118  of 1964. Appeal  from the judgment and order dated March 2,  1964  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2531 of 1963 referred No. 160 of 1963. K. L. Sharma and Harbans Singh for the appellant. O. P Rana, for the respondent. LS5SCI-19(a) 266 The Judgment Of SARKAR, C.J. and MUDHOLKAR, J. was delivered by MUDHOLKAR, J. BACHAWAT, J. delivered a separate Opinion. Mudholkar,  J. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaon,  after convicting  the  appellant Sita Ram of an offence  under  s. 302,  Indian Penal Code for the murder of his  wife  Sindura Rani,  has  sentenced  him  to death.   The  High  Court  of Allahabad  affirmed his conviction but reduced the  sentence to one of imprisonment for life. The fact that Sindura Rani met with a homicidal death is not in  dispute.  What is, however, contended on behalf  of  the appellant is that there is no evidence on the basis of which his conviction could be based.  Admittedly there are no eye- witnesses  to the occurrence.  The prosecution case  against him rests on the following material:               (1)   motive; (2) opportunity; (3)  subsequent               conduct;   (4)  false  explanation   and   (5)               confessional statements. There is ample evidence on record to show that the relations between the appellant and his wife were very much  strained, that the two were living apart and that this was because the appellant  suspected  that  his wife was a  woman  of  loose character.  This evidence consists of the testimony of  some near  relatives and also of several letters written  by  the appellant  to  his wife Sindura Rani, to  his  mother-in-law Inder  Kaur  (P.W. 2) and to his  brother-in-law  Tilak  Raj (P.W. 1).  The appellant had denied that the letters were in his  hand-writing but it has been found by both  the  courts below that they were in fact written by him.  The finding of each of the two courts below that the relations between  the appellant  and his wife were strained because the  appellant not  merely  suspected  the fidelity of his  wife  but  also charged  her  with unchastised being one of fact  cannot  be lightly permitted to be questioned in an appeal by special leave.  No ground has been made out by learned counsel which would justify our looking into the evidence for ourselves. Similarly, on the question of opportunity, Sindura Rani  who had  gone  to  stay with her people had been  asked  by  the appellant  to return home on the pretext that one  of  their children  was  ill and accordingly she arrived  at  Kashipur where  the  appellant lived only 5 or 6 days  prior  to  the incident.   Since her return she and the appellant were  the only two adult persons living in the house of the appellant. The  only other person living with them was  their  daughter about two years old. When  the Sub-Inspector of Police arrived on the morning  of September  15,  1962  after  receiving  a  report  that  the appellant’s  house was locked from outside and the cry of  a child  from inside could be heard, found the outer  door  of the house locked.  After breaking it open he found a lantern burning by the side of the dead body of Sindura Rani.   From these facts the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had an                             267 opportunity  to commit the murder of his wife Sindura  Rani. The  appellant’s  defence that he had gone to  Punjab  along with one Pritam Singh on September 13, 1962 and could return from there on September 19, has not been accepted by the two courts below in the absence of any material to  substantiate it.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

In  addition to these there is the fact that  the  appellant could  not  be  found till September 19, on  which  date  he surrendered  him.  self  before  the  court.   It  would  be reasonable  to infer from this that he was  absconding  till this  date.   The  explanation  which  the  appellant   gave concerning  his absence has been rightly rejected as  false. In the circumstances there was adequate material before  the courts below upon which his conviction could be based. In addition to this circumstantial evidence the  prosecution placed  reliance  upon  Ex.  Ka 9. This is  a  letter  dated September  14,  1962 addressed to  the  ’Sub-Inspector’  and bears  the  signature of the appellant in  Urdu.   It  reads thus:               "I have myself committed the murder of my wife               Smt.   Sindura Rani.  Nobody else  perpetrated               this crime.  I would appear myself after 20 or               25  days and then will state everything.   One               day the law will extend its hands and will get               me arrested.  I would surrender myself.                          (Sd. in Urdu).Sita Ram Naroola,                             14th September, 1962."                On  the  back of this letter is  written  the               following:                "It  is the first and the last offence of  my               life.   I have not done any illegal act nor  I               had  the  courage to do that, but  this  woman               compelled  me to do so and I bad to break  the               law. This  letter  was  found on a table near the  dead  body  of Sindura  Rani.  It was noticed by the  Sub-Inspector  Jagbir Singh,  P.W. 16 and seized in the presence of three  persons who  attested  the  seize memo and were  later  examined  as witnesses  in  the case.  The  prosecution  has  established satisfactorily that the letter is in the had writing of  the appellant  and that the signature it bears is, also that  of the  appellant.   Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has challenged,  the admissibility of this letter on the  ground that  it  amounts to a confession to a  police  officer  and that,  therefore,  s.  25 of the  Evidence  Act  renders  it inadmissible  in  evidence.   We,  do  not  think  that  the objection is well-founded.  No doubt, the letter contains  a confession  and is also addressed to a police, officer,  The at  cannot  make it a confession made to  a  police  officer which  is  within the bay created by s. 25 of  the  Evidence Act,  The police officer was not nearby when the letter  was written  or  knew  that  it  was  being  written.   In  such circumstance quite obviously- the letter would not,, 268 have  been a confession to the police officer if  the  words "SubInspector" had not been written.  Nor do we think it can become  one in similar circumstances only because the  words "Sub-Inspector" had been written there.  It would still have not  been  a  confession made to a police  officer  for  the simple  reason  that it was not so made from  any  point  of view. We agree with the High Court, therefore, that the confession contained  in  Ex.   Ka-9 is admissible and that  it  is  an additional  circumstance  which  can be pressed  in  aid  in support  of the charge against the appellant.   However,  as already  stated,  even without this  confessional  statement there was sufficient material before the courts below on the basis   of  which  the  appellant’s  conviction   could   be sustained. The   appeal  is  without  any  merit  and  is   accordingly dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

Bachawat, J Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act reads:               "No confession made to a police officer  shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence." In  my opinion, the letter, Ex.  Ka-9, is a confession  made to  a  police  officer, and is not  admissible  in  evidence against  the appellant.  The letter contained a  confession, and was addressed to the Sub-Inspector.  The appellant wrote the letter with the intention that it should be received  by the Sub-Inspector, kept it on a table near the dead body  of his wife and left the, house after locking it.  The lock wag broken  open  and  the  letter was  recovered  by  the  Sub- Inspector,  Kasipur,  to whom the letter was  written.   The Sub-Inspector  received the letter as effectively ’as if  it was sent to him by post or by a peon. It is said that the appellant made no confession to the sub- Inspector, inasmuch as the officer was ’not present near the appellant  when  he wrote the letter.  I do not  see  why  a confession  cannot be made to a police officer unless he  is present  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  accused.   A confession  can  be  made to a police  officer  by  an  oral message to him over the telephone or the radio-as-also by  a written message Communicated to him through post,  messenger or  otherwise.   The  presence or  absence  ’of  the  police officer-near  the accused is not decisive on  the  question whether  the confession is hit by S. 25.  A confession to  a stranger  though  made in the presence of a police  officer is not hit by S. 25.  On the other handful confession to  a police officer is within the ban of S. 25, though it was not made  in his presence.  A confessional letter written  to  a police  officer  and  sent  to him  by  post,  messenger  or otherwise  is  not  outside the ban of s.  25.  because  the police officer ignorant of the letter at the  moment when it was being written. 269 In R.V. Hurribole(1) Garth,C.J. Said that s.25 is an enact- Ment to which the Court should give ’the fullest effect.  He added:               "I  think  it better in construing  a  section               such  as  the 25th, which was  intended  as  a               wholesome   protection  to  the  accused,   to               construe  it  in its widest and  most  popular               signification." In  its widest and most popular signification, the phrase  " confession  Made to a police officer" includes a  confession made  to  a police officer in a letter written  to  him  and subsequently  received  by him. We should not cut  down  the wholesome protection of s. 25 by refined arguments. I am,, therefore, of the opinion that the Courts below  were in error in admitting Ex.  Ka-9 against the appellant. I  however,  agree  that, apart from  Ex.   Ka-9  there  are sufficient materials on the record establishing the guilt of the appellant.  The appeal must, therefore, fail. The appeal is dismissed.                      Appeal dismissed. (1) [1876] I.L.R. I cal. 207  215-216. 270