RAMBHAU BHAGWAN DHORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused, who is the appellant before us, was charged with the murder of his wife. He was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence the present appeal. [After dealing with the facts and discussing the evidence in paras 2 to 13 the judgment proceeds: ]

(2.) Mr. Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, invited us to reject the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the village Kotwal, Ramchandra, on the ground that it fell within the purview of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. Mr. Khan urged that Ramchandra being the village Kotwal, was a police officer, hence the extra-judicial confession made to Ramchandra, viz., "I have cut my wife with axe", was inadmissible in evidence. The question that arises is whether a village Kotwal is a "police officer" as contemplated by section 25 of the Evidence Act. We were invited to answer that question in the affirmative on the ground that a village Kotwal is an officer who performs functions connected with the administration of the village and hence is a "police officer" as contemplated by section 25 of the Evidence Act. Our attention was invited by Mr. Khan to section 40(2)(iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sec. 40 pertains to the duty of officers employed in connection with the affairs of a village to make reports to the nearest Magistrate or officer-in-charge of the nearest police station of any information they may possess respecting, (a) the residence of any notorious receiver, or vendore of stolen property in or near the village; (b) the resort of a thug, robber, escaped convict or proclaimed offender; (c) the commission of, or intention to commit in or near the village certain offences; (d)the occurrence in or near the village of any sudden or unnatural death under suspicious circumstances or the discovery of a corpse under suspicious circumstances indicative of a non-bailable offence having been committed; (e) the commission or intention of committing certain offences, (f) any matter likely to affect the maintenance of order or prevention of crime or safety of person or property respecting which the District Magistrate has directed him to communicate information. Sec. 40(2)(iii) reads thus:

(3.) Chapter II of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, pertains to Revenue Officers, their powers and duties. Sections 5 and 6 provide that the chief controlling authority is the Commissioner and thereafter the Additional Commissioner and Assistant Commissioners to assist the Commissioner. Sec. 7(1) provides for the appointment of a Collector for the City of Bombay and each district who shall be in-charge of the revenue administration thereof and for the appointment of a Tahsildar to each Taluka who shall be the chief officer entrusted with the local revenue administration of a Taluka. Sec. 7(2) provides for the appointment of one or more additional Collectors in the City of Bombay and each district and so many Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors, Naib-Tahsildars in a Taluka and one or more Additional Tahsildars or Naib-Tahsildars therein and such other persons (having such designations) to assist the revenue officers as may be deemed expedient. Sec. 7(3) gives power to the Collector to place any Assistant or Deputy Collector in-charge of one or more sub-divisions of a district. Sec. 7(4) reads as under: