KAVITA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 902 · Decided: 23-07-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
KAVITA 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
JULY 23, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI C.J.I. AND M. SRINIVASAN, J.) 
Criminal Law : 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 24. 
Extra-judicial confession-Value of-Held: Depends upon the Veracity 
of the witness to whom it is made-Witness need not give actual words used 
by the accused-In the circumstances of the case, discrepancies in the evidence 
of the witnesses to whom the confessional statement was made renders the 
extra-judicial confession not acceptable. 
Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302 and 309. 
Appreciation of evidence-Accused jumped into well after throwing her 
two children in it-Evidence of the doctor who performed the post-mortem 
not clear as to how the body of the son instantly floated while that of the 
E daughter folly sunk in the water-Held : In the circumstances of the case, it 
is not possible to accept the evidence of the witness that he saw the body 
of the son instantly floating when immediately after the incident he looked 
into the well-Criminal Trial. 
F 
Medical Jurisprudence : 
Drowning-Body usually sinks and starts floating only after some 
hours. 
The appellant-accused was convicted for offences under Sections 302 
G and 309 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment 
for life. The High Court, placing reliance on the extra-judicial confession 
of the accused, confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal. 
According to the prosecution PW-I saw the accused jumping into a 
well after throwing her two children in it. PW-I also saw the body of the son 
H floating while that of the daughter fully sunk in the water. PWs I to 3 went 
902 
KA VITA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
903 
~ 
down the well and brought out the accused. When questioned by them the A 
.. 
;I • 
11\ 
accused replied that she could not withstand the daily torture at the hands 
of her husband and decided to bring an end to her life along with that of her 
children. The accused was conscious when she was taken out of the well and 
became unconscious immediately after making the statement of confession. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I.I Convictions can be based on extra-judicial confession but 
B 
it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of 
evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof 
depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It may not be C 
necessary that the witness must give the actual words used by the accused 
but it is for the Court to decide on the acceptability of the evidence having 
regard to the credibility of the witnesses. [904-H; 905-A[ 
1.2. In the instant case it is somewhat difficult to believe that the 
appellant was conscious when she was taken out of the well and she became D 
unconscious immediately after making a statement of confession. On the 
other hand, the version of the appellant is that she was unconscious after she 
slipped into the well and she regained consciousness only in the hospital. 
That appears to be more probable. [906-D-E[ 
2. The evidence of the doctor who performed the post-mortem is not E 
very clear as to how the body of the son could instantly float while the body 
of the daughter was fully sunk i.n the water. After drowning a body usually 
sinks and only after some hours it would start floating. Therefore, it is not 
possible to accept the evidence of the witness that he saw the body of the son 
floating when immediately he looked into the well. (908-G; 907-8) 
Taylor; "Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence" 13th Edn. 
p. 300 and Modi 's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 21st 
Edn. p. 226, referred to. 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. G 
695 of 1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.92 of the Madras High Court 
in Crl. A. No. 342 of 1986. 
M.A. Chinnaswamy, M.A. Krishnamoorthy and J.B. Ravi for the Appellant. H 
904 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
V.G. Pragasam for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SRINIVASAN, J. The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, 
Tirunelveli for offences under Section 302 and Section 309 IPC and sentenced 
B to life imprisonment for the former and one year rigorous imprisonment for the 
latter. The conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal by the High 
Court and aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: 
C 
On 13.1.85 at about 8.00 AM

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