SAHOO versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 86 · Decided: 16-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

86 
SAHOO 
v 
STATE OF U.P. 
February 16, 1965 
[K. SUBBA RAO, J. C. SHAH AND ~. S. BACHAWAT, Jf} 
Confession-Accused mutte,ring self-indriminating statement to 
himself-Whether amounts to confession-Communication to another 
. ;person whether necessary. 
The Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant of murder took 
into account an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made 
by .him when shortly after the murder he was muttering to hi,,,self 
that he had finished the deceased. The High Court confirmed the 
·conviction. In appeal before this Court it was contended that that 
the muttering of the accused did not amount to a confession as it 
\Vas implic:t in the concept Of confession whether judicial or extra-
judicial that it should he communicated to another. A man 
can~ 
not confess to himself; he can only confess to another. 
HELD: (i) Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act deal with the 
.admissibility· of confession"' but the expression 'confession' is not 
defined. Shortly stated a confession is a statement made by an accus-
·ed admitting his guilt. (88 E] 
Pakala Narayana v. R. L. R. 66 I.A 66, referred to. 
(ii) It is not a necessary ingredient of the term confession that 
it shall be communicated to another. The dictionary meaning of the 
term does not Warrant·any such extension, nor the reason of the rule 
underlying the doctrine of admission or confession demands it. The 
probative nature of an admission or confession does not depend on 
its communication to anotMr though just like any other piece of 
evidence can be admitted in evidence only on proof. The following 
illustration pertaining to a written confession brings out the idea: A 
kills B; enters in his diary that he had killed him, puts it in his 
drawer and absconds. When he places his act on record he does not 
communicate to another; indeed he does not have any intention of 
communicating it to a third party. Even so at the trial the said state-
ment of the accused can certainly be proved as a confession made by 
him. If that be so in the case of a statement in writing, there cannot 
be any difference in principle in the case of an oral statement. 
(88 H~89 C] 
8hogilal Chunilal Pandya v. State of Bombay, . r19591 
Supp. 1 
S.C.R. 310, relied on. 
(iii) But there 1s a clear distinction between the admissibility of 
;an item of evidence and the weight to be attached to it. A confessional 
soliloquy is a direct piece of evidence. Generally such soliloquies are 
mutterings of a confused mind. Before such evidence can be accepted 
it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words 
used by the accused. Even if so much was established prudence and 
justice demand that such evidence cannot be made the sole ground 
of conviction. It may be used only as a corroborative piece of evi-
dence. [90 B, DJ 
In the present case the confession along with the other evidence 
of circumstances was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant. 
CRIMINAL APPELLAT,E JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 248 
of 1964. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SAHoo v. STATE (Subba Rao, J.) 
87 
A 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 16, 
1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 
1964 and capital sentenoe No. 26 of 1964. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
R 
P. C. Khanna, for the appellant. 
0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
_ 
. 
Sobba_ Rao, J. Sahoo, the appellant, is a resident of Pachperwa 
m the D1stnct of Gonda. He has two sons, Badri and Kirpa 
Shanker. He lost his wife years ago. His eldest son, Badri, married 
one Sunderpatti. Badri was employed in Lucknow, and his wife 
was residing with his father. It is said that Sunderpatti developed 
illicit intimacy with Sahoo; but there were incessant quarrels bet-
ween them. On August 12, 1963, during one of those quarrels, 
Sunderpatti ran away to the house of one Mohammed Abdullah, 
a neighbour of theirs. The appellant brought her back, and after 
some wordy altercation between them they slept in the only room 
of their house. The only other inmate of the house was the appel-
lant's second son, Kirpa Shanker, a lad of about 8 years. On the 
morning of August 13, 1963, Sunderpatti was found with serious 
in juries in the room of the house where she was sleeping and the 
appellant was not in the house. Sunderpatti was admitted in the 
Sadar Hospital, Gonda, at 5.25 p.m. on that day and she died on 
August 26, 1963 at 3 p.m. Sahoo was sent up for trial

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