VELAYUDA PULAVAR versus STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 383 · Decided: 16-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 383 
t 
VELAYUDA PULAVAR 
A 
v. 
STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2002) 
APRIL 16, 2009 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
... 
GANGULY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860·- ss. 302 and 201 - Illicit relation of 
wife of deceased and appellant - Quarrel between deceased c 
and appellant -
Murder of deceased -
Extra judicial 
confession of appellant before Village Administrative Officer 
- Conviction by courts below - Held: Justified - Conviction 
can be recorded solely on the basis of extra judicial 
- 't 
confession if it is found to be credible and worthy of D 
acceptance - Corroboration of judicial confession or extra 
judicial confession need not be in material particulars - It can 
be in general - Evidence of Village Administrative Officer 
coupled with that of other prosecution witness makes it clear 
that there was voluntary extra-judicial confession made by E 
appellant before Village Administrative Officer. 
, The question which arose for consideration in this 
-~ 
appeal was whether the appellants were justified in 
convicting the appellant for offences punishable uls. 302 
F 
and 201 IPC relying on the extra judicial confession 
made by the accused. 
-
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
\ 
HELD: In the instant case, the extra judicial 
-I 
G 
confession was made before the Village Administrative 
Officer-PW 1 who is not a stranger to the first accused 
and he knew him for quite some time. The evidence on 
record clearly establishes that the confession was 
383 
H 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
recorded by PW.1 in the Panchayat Office in the presence 
of many persons. The evidence of PW. 3 also 
corroborates the version of PW. 1 that the present 
appellant made extra judicial confession in the Panchayat 
Office and he is one of the attestors to it. So far as plea 
B relating to corroboration is concerned, if the court looks 
for such corroboration of a judicial confession or an extra 
judicial confession, same need not be in material 
particulars. It can be and will have to be only 
corroboration in general. Each an.d every piece of 
C information mentioned in the extra-judicial confession 
need not be corroborated by independent evidence. The 
conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of the 
extra judicial confession if it is found to be credible and 
worthy of acceptance. PW.1's evidence coupled with that 
D of PW.3 makes the position clear that there was a 
voluntary extra-judicial confession made by the appellant 
before the Village Administrative Officer. That being so, 
there is no scope for interference in appeal. [Para 10) 
(386-E-H; 387-A] 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 595 of 2002. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 17.12.1999 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal. No. 242 of 
F 
1990. 
V. Mohana, for the Appellant. 
S. Thananjayan for lhe Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is 
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court 
upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable 
H under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 
-
i 
-
-
VELAYUDA PULAVAR v. STATE BY SUB-
385 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
_.. 
~ 
2. Two persons faced trial for commission of murder of 
A 
Viswanatha Pulavar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). 
The appellant is the younger brother of the deceased while the 
second accused was the wife of the deceased. 
3. Learned Sessions Judge, Tirunervelli, held the appellant 
B 
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 
IPC; but directed acquittal of the co-accused of the charges 
~ 
relating to offence punishable under Section 302 read with 
Section 34 IPC. Though the co-accused has been convicted 
for the offence· punishable under Section 201 IPC she did not c 
question her conviction under the said offence. 
4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
5. The appellant and the deceased and his wife were 
staying together. There were frequent quarrels between the 
D 
- r-
deceased and the present appetlal)t as the former suspected 
the fidelity of his wife (accused No.2) and he was of the 
confirmed view that the appellant was having illicit relationship 
with his wife. 
6. On 18.6.1986, the Village Administrative Officer PW.1 
E 
of the concerned village found that a a big crowd had 
assembled at the Panchayat 

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