REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2004

State of A.P. ….Appellant

Versus

E. Satyanarayana ….Respondent                

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Division Bench of the  

Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who faced  

trial  for alleged commission of murder  of his wife and minor son in the  

intervening night of 14/15.11.1996.   

2. Learned  Sessions  Judge,  Nizamabad,  had  found  him guilty  of  the  

offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in  

short ‘IPC’) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.   

1

3. The  whole  prosecution  case  rested  on  the  alleged  extra  judicial  

confession purported to have been made by the accused before the Village  

Administrative  Officer  (PW.1)  around  8.00  a.m.   The  First  Information  

Report was given to the police at 11.30 a.m. on 15.11.1996.  It was indicated  

in  the  FIR  that  the  accused  had  made  a  confession  before  Village  

Administrative Officer to have killed the wife and son because of the quarrel  

over family affairs.

4. The trial Court found the evidence of PW.1 so far as alleged extra  

judicial confession is concerned to be reliable and directed the conviction.  

In appeal, the primary stand taken by the accused respondent was that the  

evidence of PW.1 is not believable.  It contradicts the evidence of PW.2, and  

the Investigating Officer.  The High Court analaysed the evidence and came  

to the conclusion that the so-called extra judicial confession has not been  

established.  

5. The High Court analysed the position in law relating to extra judicial  

confession, namely, that the Court has to be satisfied that the so-called extra-

judicial confession is voluntary and not as a result of any inductment, threat  

2

or promise as envisaged in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in  

short ‘Evidence Act’) or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to  

circumvent Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.   

6. In  Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v.  State of Vindhya Pradesh (AIR 1954  

SC 322), and  Maghar Singh v.  State of Punjab (AIR 1975 SC 1320), this  

Court held that the evidence in the form of extra-judicial confession made by  

the accused to witnesses cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence.  

Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution.  

If the court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is  

satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then conviction  

can be found on such evidence alone. In  Narayan Singh v.  State of M.P.  

(AIR 1985 SC 1678) this Court cautioned that it  is not open to the court  

trying  the  criminal  case  to  start  with  a  presumption  that  extra  judicial  

confession is always a weak type of evidence.  It would depend on the nature  

of  the  circumstances,  the  time  when  the  confession  is  made  and  the  

credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession.  The retraction  

of extra judicial confession which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases  

would by itself not weaken the case of the prosecution based upon such a  

confession.  In  Kishore Chand v.  State of H.P. (AIR 1990 SC 2140) this  

3

Court  held  that  an  unambiguous extra  judicial  confession possesses  high  

probative value force as it  emanates  from the person who committed the  

crime and is admissible in evidence provided it is free from suspicion and  

suggestion of any falsity. However, before relying on the alleged confession,  

the  court  has  to  be  satisfied  that  it  is  voluntary  and is  not  the  result  of  

inductment, threat or promise envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence  

Act  or  was  brought  about  in  suspicious  circumstances  to  circumvent  

Sections 25 and 26.   The Court  is  required to  look into  the  surrounding  

circumstances to find out as to whether such confession is not inspired by  

any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting  

that it may not be true.  All relevant circumstances such as the person to  

whom  the  confession  is  made,  the  time  and  place  of  making  it,  the  

circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinized.  To the same  

effect is the judgment in Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana (AIR 1991 SC 37).  

After referring to the judgment in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1977  

SC 2274), this Court in  Madan Gopal Kakkad v.  Naval Dubey (1992 (3)  

SCC 204) held that the extra judicial confession which is not obtained by  

coercion, promise of favour or false hope and is plenary in character and  

voluntary  in  nature  can  be  made  the  basis  for  conviction  even  without  

corroboration.  

4

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the evidence of  

PW.1 should not have been discarded by the High Court as he was a person  

on whom the accused could have reposed confidence as he was the Village  

Administrative  Officer.  Additionally,  it  is  submitted  that  minor  

discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1 vis-à-vis other witnesses should not  

have been magnified to direct acquittal.  Learned counsel for the respondent,  

on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.       

8. We find there are some relevant aspects which High Court has rightly  

taken note  of.   Firstly,  the  extra-judicial  confession is  said to  have been  

made at about 8.00 a.m.  The First Information Report was given at 11.30  

a.m.  It has not been explained as to why there was delay in lodging the FIR  

by the Village Administrative Officer.  The evidence of PW.2 shows that  

police was in the house of the accused around 8.00 a.m.  If that be so, the  

first thing PW.1 would have done was to report to the police about the extra-

judicial confession.  That apparently has not been done. PW.1 stated that  

after the extra judicial confession was made, he asked two persons to keep a  

watch  over  the  accused  and  then  the  police  came  and  the  accused  was  

handed over to the police officials.  This runs contrary to the evidence of  

PW.14 who has clearly admitted that the position was not so.      

5

9. Another piece of material on which the trial Court had placed reliance  

related  to  the  recovery  of  the  blood  stained  sickle  on  the  basis  of  the  

disclosure made by the accused.  The High Court has noticed that the police  

was at the place of occurrence from 8.00 a.m. till 4.00 p.m.  If that was so,  

no explanation has been offered as to why the blood stained sickle in the  

house of the accused was not noticed.  The conclusions of the High Court  

leave no manner of doubt that  the judgment  of  the High Court  does not  

suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference.    

10. The appeal is dismissed.  

       11. We record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr.  

Nikhil Goel who acted as Amicus Curiae in this case.

………..……..............................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

………… ….................................J.

(D.K. JAIN)

……………..................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi,

6

April 30, 2009

7