VINAYAK SHIVAJIRAO POL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 22-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
) 
VINA YAK SHIV AJIRAO POL 
A 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
JANUARY 22, 1998 
[M.M. PUNCHHI, CJ. AND M. SRINIVASAN, J.] 
B 
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sec., 302-Murder of wife-Extra Judicial 
Confession-Highly decomposed headless body recovered fi'om well-Post 
Mortem report-Death due to haemorrhage-Confession that murder was 
committed by strangulation-Head of deceased recovered at the instance of C 
appellant-Trial Court acquitting on the ground that Prosecution evidence 
ran counter to confessional statement-High Court convicting placing 
reliance on Statement of Confession-On appeal, held no ambiguity in the 
Extra Judicial Confession-No reliance can be placed on Post Mortem 
report-Hence High, Court justified in holding the appellant guilty of D 
Murder-However, since it is not a rarest of rare case death sentence reduced 
to life imprisonment. 
The appellant was convicted for an offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal 
Code, 1860 and sentenced to death. 
The appellant was a Sepoy in the Army. His wife, the deceased was not E 
keeping well and the appellant had left her with his parents. Appellant was 
absent from duty for two days without intimation and gave an explanation to 
the authorities that he had gone to his sister's house. In the meanwhile the 
father of the deceased went to his daughter as he got a letter from her to 
come immediately. The deceased was not available and the parents of the F 
-"'. 
appell~nt could not give any satisfactory explanation. After three days a 
~ 
headless body was found in a well in a highly decomposed state. The body was 
cremated without identification. The appellant made a confessional statement 
before his superior officers that he had killed his wife. The matter was 
informed to the police. The appellant and his friend, a co-accused were 
arrested. The police with the help of the appellant recovered the head of G 
deceased from another well in the same village. Charges were framed against 
the appellant and his friend. The Post Mortem report stated that the death 
. occurred due to haemorrhage by cutting off the head. However, in the 
"confession statement the appellant has admitted that he killed his wife by 
strangling. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant on the ground that the H 
309 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 
A evidence led by the prosecution ran counter to the extra judicial confession. 
B 
On appeal, the High Court relying upon the Statement of Confession 
and the recovery of head at the instance of the appellant, convicted him for 
an offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to death. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
The contention of the appellant was that the Medical evidence were 
contrary to the statement of confession made and in the face of such 
contradictions the High Court ought not to have relied on the extra judicial 
confession. 
C 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court was justified in holding the appellant 
guilty of committing the murder of his wife. [319-F] 
1.2. There is no ambiguity in the Extra Judicial Confession Statement. 
D It shows that the appellant killed his wife. Both the Courts have found that 
the statement wa·s made voluntarily by the appellant. The sequence of events 
shows that at the time when the appellant made the confession, neither he 
nor the military authorities had any knowledge of the recovery of the headless 
trunk of the appellant's wife. The military authorities were in no way biased 
E or inimical to the appellant. Nothing is brought out in the evidence which 
may indicate that the military officers had a motive for attributing any 
untruthful statement to the appellant. The statement has been proved by one 
of the officers to whom it was made. The plea that the statement was obtained 
by inducement and promise is not true. Thus it is open to the court to rest 
its conclusion on the basis of such statement and no corroboration is 
F necessary. [315-G-H; 316-A-B) 
State of UP. v. MK. Anthony, AIR (1985) S.C. 48 and Piara Singh and 
Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR (1977) 2274, referred to. 
Nishikant Jha v. The State of Bihar, (1969] I S.C.C. 347; Harchand 
G Singh & Another v. State of Haryana, [1974] 3 S.C.C. 397; Makhan Singh 
v. State of Punjab, [1988] Supp. S.C.C. 526 and Chhittar v. State ofRajasthan, 
[1955] Supp. 4 S.C.C. 519, held inapplicable. 
1.3. In the instant case apart from the statement of recovery there is 
a clinching circumstance against the appellant, 

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