KANDA PADAYACHI ALIAS KANDASWAMY versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1972] 1 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 27-08-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

450 
KANDA PADAYACIDaliar KANDASWAMY 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
August 27, 1971 
[J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND S. C. ROY, JJ.J 
Evidence Act (1 of 1872), ss. 21 and 26-Statement to doctor admit-
ting incriminating fact-Made by accused while in police custody-If con-
fession and hence irrelevant or relevant as admission. 
The conviction of the appellant by the Sessions Court for the offence 
of murder was confirmed by the High Court. The evidence was circum· 
stantial. One of the circumstances was a statement by the appellant, while 
in palicc custody, to the doctor, which established the presence of the 
appellant in the cleceased's room at about the time of death and together 
with other circumstances, that he a!One caused the death of the deceased. 
On the question whether the statement was a confession and hence 
irrelevant under s. 26 of the faidence Act, 1872. 
HELD : A confession has to be a direct acknowledgement of the guilt 
A 
B 
c 
of the offence in question and such as would be sufficient by itself for con-
D 
viction. 
If it falls short of such a plenary acknowledgement of guilt, it 
would not be a confession even though the statement is of some incrimi-
nating fact which, taken along with other evidence, tends to prove the guilt 
of the accused. 
Such a statement is only an admission and not a confes· 
sion. [454 F-G] 
Palvinder Kaur v. Punjab, [1953] S.C.R. 94, Faddi v. Madhya Pra-
desh, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 312 and A. Nagesia y, Bihar, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 
E 
119, 123, followed. 
Pakala Naravana Swami v. The King, 66 I.A. 66. applied. 
Observations of Shah, J. in U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, 
[1961] 
S.C.R. 14, 21, explained. 
Queen Empress v. Nana, (1889) I.L.R. 14 Born. 260, overrukd. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
I 9 of 1971. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April 29, 1970 
of the.Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 1969 
and Referred Trial No. 69 of 1969. 
S. K. Gambhir, for the appellant. 
A. V. Rangam, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J. 
This appeal is against the judgment of the 
High Court of Madras by which it confirmed the appellant's con-
viction under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the sen-
tence of death awarded to him. 
It is founded on a certificate 
granted by the High Court under Att. 134(1 )(c) of the Cons-
titution. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
KANDASWAMY V. TAMIL NADU (She/at, !.) 
45 I 
At the material time the appellant, a widower for sometime, 
was living in village Valayamadevi near the house where the 
deceased Natesa Padayachi and his wife Meenakshi (P.W. 1) 
used to reside. 
In course of time the appellant and Meenakshi 
developed illi~it intimacy. 
The deceased Natesa was serving as 
a driver in a rice mill belonging to one Sundaralingam Pillai and 
his son Guhan Pillai (P .W. 6). 
One afternoon the deceased 
returned home a little earlier than usual and found his wife and 
the appellant in a compromising position. 
A quarrel 
ensued 
between the deceased and the appellant when the deceased warn-
ed the appellant against his coming to his house. 
The appellant 
retorted that instead of quarrelling with him the deceased should 
control his wife. 
To prevent the appellant visiting his residence 
the appellant and his wife went .to reside in a portion of a 
Chatram belonging to his master. 
Enraged by this change of 
residence by the deceased, the appellant demanded, through one 
Govindaraja (P.W. 2), that the deceased should return to him 
the presents given by him to his wife. He repeated this demand 
about two days prior to the date of the occurrence through 
Subharayan (P.W. 5). On July 7, 1969, the appellant visited 
the house of the deceased, but P.W. 1 scolded him, whereupon 
the appellant told her that she was talking to him in that vain 
because of her husband, and that if he were to do away with her 
husband she would not be able to withstand him. 
On July 10, 1969, Meenakshi went to another village to see 
the deceased's brother who was ailing. 
The appellant saw her 
and her children going. At about 9.30 that night he was in the 
tea shop of P.W. 3 when he enquired if the deceased had return-
ed home from the rice mill where he was working. Next morning 
P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 found Natesa lying dead with cut injurie8 on 
his neck and other parts of his body. Amongst the articles lying 
near him, there was a towel which belonged, according to the 
prosecution, to the appellant. 
The e

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