AJAY SINGH versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 06-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AJAY SINGH 
A 
) 
v. 
ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
JUNE 6, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND D. K. JAIN, JJ.) 
B 
) 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Extra-Judicial confession-'Confession' and 'Statement '-Distinction c 
between-Accused prosecuted u/s. 302 /PC for causing death of his wife-
Witness hearing accused uttering that death of his wife was caused by him-
Held: Confession should be clear, specific and unambiguous-On facts, in the 
evidence of the three PWs who claim the accused to have made confession, 
there is great difference in the language the accused is supposed to have 
stated-There is inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses as to what 0 
was uttered by the accused-Besides, PW/ is inimical to accused and PW3 
I 
-
is his wife-It would, therefore, not be safe to place reliance on the so called 
) 
extra-judicial confession-Penal Code, 1860-s. 302. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
E 
s. 313-Power of trial court to examine accused-Purpose of-Death 
of wife of accused by burn injuries-Prosecution case that kerosene was 
found on dress of accused-No question put to accused in this regard while 
he was examined u/s 313-Held: Conviction based on accused's failure to 
explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law-He must be 
F 
questioned separately about each material substance to be used against 
""' 
him-Penal Code, 1860-s. 302. 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for murder of his wife. The 
prosecution case was that in the night of the occurrence the neighbours of 
the appellant heard him and his wife quarrelling and saw the appellant G 
dragging his wife inside the house. A.fter a short while they saw the appellant 
coming out of his quarters shouting that death of his wife was caused by him, 
and fleeing away: Thereafter, the neighbours entered the quarters of the 
appellant and saw that his wife had caught fire. They tried to extinguish the 
983 
H 
 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A fire. However, she died at the spot. FIR was lodged by one of the neighbours, 
PW 1. The trial court found the accused guilty of the charge on the grounds , 
that there was extra-judicial confession made before PWs 1, 2 and 3; and 
kerosene was found on the dress which the accused was wearing at the time 
of occurrence. The High Court concurred with the conclusions 
B 
It was contended for the appellant-accused that there was no extra-
c 
judicial confession as claimed by the prosecution inasmuch as admittedly PW 
l had animosity with the accused, and PW 3, the wife of PW 1, was bound to 
support her husband. It was submitted that the utterances addressed by the 
accused could also be towards his another neighbours and not only to PW 1. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. While dealing with a stand of extra-judicial confession, Court 
has to satisfy that the same was voluntary and without any coercion and undue 
influence. Extra-judicial confession can form the basis of conviction if persons 
D before whom it is stated to be made appear to.be unbiased and not even remotely 
inimical to the accused. Where there is material to show animosity, Court 
has to proceed cautiously and find out whether confession just like any other 
evidence depends on veracity of witness to whom it is made. 
tpara 711988-A, BJ 
E 
1.2. Confession should be clear, specific and unambiguous. In the instant 
F 
case, the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 is not consistent as to where the accused 
is supposed to have made the statement. While PW-1 said that he was inside 
the house, interestingly PW-3 stated that accused did not come out of the 
house and thereafter he did not utter a statement which is taken to be the 
extra-judicial confession. So far as PW-1 is concerned the trial court had 
disbelieved his evidence. Besides, there is inconsistency in the statement of 
these three witnesses as to what was uttered by the accused. It would, therefore, 
be not safe to place any reliance on the so called extra-judicial confession 
!Para 7) 1988-E, F, G) 
G 
1.3. The expression 'confession' is not defined in the Evidence Act. 
'Confession' is a statement made by an accused which must either admit in 
terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute 
the offence. The word 'statement' includes both oral and written statement. If 
the statement is an admission of guilt, it would amount to a confession whether 
it is communicated to another or not. !Para 811988-G, H; 989-A, Bl 
H 
' ., 
L 
·~ 
--' 
AJAY SINGHv. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.