BALDEV RAJ versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 17-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BALDEV RAJ 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
SEPTEMBER 17, 1990 
[M.H. KANIA AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ. 
Criminal Trial-Extra-judicial confession-Evidentiary value 
of-Whether can be relied upon by Court fof co;iviction. 
The appellant was convicted nnder s. 302 IPC for murdering his 
wife. The prosecution case was that on the fateful day the deceased had 
C taken meals to the appellant while he was working in the fil :d near his 
tuhewell. Her dead-body was re~vered two days later in a nearby 
drain. He made an extra-judicial confession the same day at the 
panchayat in the presence of PWs 3, 4 and S to the effect that he had 
killed his wife in the wheat field and threw the dead-body in the drain at 
O night after removing her ornaments. The FIR was lodged thereafter in 
the presence of the appellant and the fact of his statement was recorded 
therein. The weapon of offence, the kassi, and the ornaments were 
recovered from the hut near the tubewell at his instance. PW 3 narrated 
the events that preceded the occurrence. PWs 4 and S fully cor-
roborated the evidence of PW 3 in that the appellant had confessed his 
E 
guilt in their presence. The evidence was accepted by the trial court. 
The High Court sustained the conviction on the view that various 
circumstances conclusively proved the guilt of the appellant beyond 
reasonable doubt. 
F 
In the appeal it was contended for the appellant that the extra-
judicial confession even if true, was not voluntary but induced on the 
promise that he would be pardoned and the same having been retracted 
could not form the basis for a conviction in the· absence of any material 
corroboration. 
' 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: I. The High Court was right in its conclusion and there 
was no ground for interference. 
2.1 An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary can be relied upon 
H 
by the court alongwith other evidence in convicting the accused. The 
492 
BALDEV RAJ v. STATE OF HARYANA 
493 
value of the evidence as tO the confes~ion depends upon the veracity of 
the witnesses to.whom it is made. Though the court requires the witness 
to give the actual words used hy the accused as nearly as possible but it 
is not an invariable rule that the court should not accept the evidence, if 
not the actual words but the substance were given. It is for the court 
having regard to the credibility of the witness to accept the evidence or 
not. When the court believes the witness before whom the confession is 
made and it is satisfied that -th~ confession w~~ voluntary, conviction 
can be founded on such evidence. 
2.2 In theinstant case, the fact that the appellant made the con-
fession is proved by cogent evidence. He and his father were brought 
before the panchayat held in the presence of PWs 3, 4 and 5. H~ was 
questioned and was asked to speak the truth. This prompting by the 
panchayat does not amount to inducement or threat. The testimony of 
PW 4, a lambardar, and PW 5, the Sarpanch being responsible persons 
could not be doubted in the absence of any material to show that they 
had been motivated to falsely implicate the appellant. The circum-
stances under which the statement was made leaves no room for doubt 
that the confession was voluntary. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
2.3. The discovery of the dead body from 'the drain through the 
wheat field, presence of blood in the field, recovery of gold ornaments 
from the roof of the hut and blood stained kassi from the hut near the 
tubewell were material circumstances providing connecting links in the 
E 
chain of circumstantial evidence. The appellant when examined did not 
offer any explanation except to deny his involvement. PW 3 had 
testified to the fact that the deceased had complained about the ill-
treatment by her husband. In the light of such evidence, it is preposter-
ous to maintain that she may have been assaulted by some unidentified 
assailant somewhere in the fie_lds and the appellant had been falsely 
F 
· implicated in the offence. 
3. The circumstances thus proved were conclusive of the guilt of 
the appellant and incapable of being explained on any other reasonable 
hypothe_sis. Conviction has, therefore, to be maintained. 
. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 206 of 1979. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.9.1978 of the Punjab 
and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1713of1975. 
G 
.H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A.S. Sohal and S.K. Jain for the App

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