LexSADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATIL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 592 : 2025 INSC 93 Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2017) 09 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether Village Police Patil is a Police Officer in terms of s. 25 of the Evidence Act; and whether the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25, 106 – Extra judicial confession – Admissibility – Extra judicial confession to Police Patil, if admissible – Appellant-husband charged for the murder of his wife – Extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to the village Police Patil – Trial court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable u/ss.302 and 201 IPC holding that extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to Village Police Patil was inadmissible as per s.25 – High Court set aside the acquittal and held the appellant guilty of the offence of murder – Correctness: Held: Police Patil of the Village cannot be termed as a Police Officer for the purpose of s.25 – Extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused before village Police Patil is admissible in evidence and is not hit by s.25 – However, such extra-judicial confession should be found to be true and trustworthy before it is relied upon by the Court to hold the accused guilty – Extra-judicial confession should also be found to be free of any inducement, coercion etc. and should be shown to have been made by the accused on his own free will and volition – What is alleged to have been conveyed cannot be said to be an extra- judicial confession – Very omnibus and vague statement seems to have been made – High Court erred in relying upon the extra-judicial confession even while rightly holding that the [2025] 1 S.C.R. 593 Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra same was admissible in evidence as Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer – Panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case – Just because the panch witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be disbelieved – However, I.O. cannot be said to be proving the contents of the panchnama in accordance with law and the circumstance of discovery cannot be relied upon – Motive cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused – Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Initial burden of proof is always on the prosecution – However, in cases where husband is alleged to have killed his wife in the night hours and that too within the residential house, then undoubtedly the husband has to offer some explanation as to what had actually happened and if he fails to offer any plausible explanation, this can go against him – Prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke s.106 – It cannot straightaway invoke s.106 and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence – In view thereof, the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder – Impugned judgment set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201. [Paras 27, 31, 36-38, 42, 47-49, 50-51, 55, 56, 58] Case Law Cited Rajeshwer S/o Hiraman Mohurle v. State of Maharashtra (2009) Criminal Law Journal 3816; C.K. Ravindra v. the State of Kerala [1999] Supp. 5 SCR 140 : AIR 2000 SC 369; Ram Singh v. the State of Maharashtra & Anr (1999) Criminal Law Journal 3763; Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) Supplementary 4 SCC 259 – referred to. List of Acts Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967. List of Keywords Extra judicial confession; Admissibility of extra judicial confession to Police Patil; Police Patil, if termed as a Police Officer; Panch witnesses; Motive. 594 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2017 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2015 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRLA No. 70 of 1994 Appearances for Parties Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammed, Rishabh Agarwal, Advs. for the Appellant. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 3-7-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.