PRABHAKAR NARAYAN UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HIS Lordship after considering the evidence in the case, proceeded. These then are the various circumstances that lend support to and corroborate the three extra -judicial confessions which, it must be conceded, is certainly the main evidence led by the prosecution against the appellant. A number of submissions were made by the learned advocate Mr. Abhale appearing for the appellant dining the course of the arguments, and he submitted that the evidence on record was insufficient for the conviction of the appellant. He submitted : (i) that the evidence furnished by the extra -judicial confessions has always been regarded to be weak evidence, (ii) that the evidence furnished by an extra -judicial confession maybe used only as a corroborative piece of evidence and not as the main evidence on which the conviction of an accused person can be based, and (iii) that even if the conviction may be based on the extra -judicial confessions, the extra -judicial confessions were required to be substantially corroborated, and that the corroboration available in this case was not sufficient to Warrant the conviction of the appellant. Mr. Abhale cited a number of authorities in this connection.

(2.) PRINCIPAL reliance was placed by the learned advocate for the appellant on the observations of Subbarao, J. (as he then was) in Sahoo v. State of U.P. : 1966CriLJ68 . The appellant Sahoo was charged under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and it was alleged that he had killed Sunderpatti, the wife of his eldest son. Except for the extra -judicial confession, the entire evidence in the ease was circumstantial. The observations relied upon by Mr. Abhale read as follows (p. 174): But, there is a clear distinction between the admissibility of an evidence and the weight to be attached to it. A confessional soliloquy is a direct piece of evidence. It may be an expression of conflict of emotion; a conscious effort to stifle the pricked conscience; an argument to find excuses or justification for his act; or a penitent or remorseful act of exaggeration of his part in the crime. The tone may be soft and low; the words may be confused; they may be capable of conflicting interpretations depending on witnesses, whether they are biased or honest, intelligent or ignorant, imaginative or prosaic, as the case may be. Generally they are mutterings of a confused mind. Before such evidence can be accepted, it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused. Even if so much was established, prudence and justice demand that such evidence cannot be made the sole ground of conviction. It may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence. (italics supplied).

(3.) THE third case very strongly relied upon by Mr. Abhale was Bhagan v. State of Pepsu A.I.R.[1955] Pep 33.of that judgment it has been observed that ordinarily it is unsafe to base conviction on an extra -judicial confession. 'It is not possible to ascertain the exact words and the language used by the confessing accused. Therefore, it is not of such a nature as to entitle it to any weight'. It may be mentioned that in the Pepsu case the Court held that the extra -judicial confession had been extorted from the accused and, therefore, refused to rely on the same. It is undoubtedly true that a confession must be a voluntary one and the Court, before it can base a conviction on a confession, must satisfy itself that it was voluntary and true.