R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1922 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Sd/-

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI Sd/-

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

Yes

==========================================================

BHARTIBEN W/O GUNESHBHAI PREMJIBHAI GAMIT

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT

==========================================================

Appearance:

HCLS COMMITTEE(4998) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR VINOD M GAMARA(5910) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1

==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 25/02/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)

1.This conviction appeal is directed against the judgment and order

of conviction dated 11.01.2012, passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Surat at Vyara, in connection with Sessions Case

No. 43 of 2010, by which, the sole accused Bhartiben wife of

Guneshbhai Gamit was convicted under Section 302 of Indian

Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and fine

amount of Rs.100/- and in default in payment of fine, to suffer

Page 1 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

rigorous imprisonment of 1 month.

2.The case of the prosecution, leading to conviction of the appellant

accused is as follows:

2.1The appellant accused Bhartiben was the wife of deceased

Guneshbhai Gamit and they were staying together at Village

Doswada, Songadh, Dist.: Tapi. Their marriage life was disturbed

due to matrimonial dispute. The deceased husband was serving with

Textile Manufacturing Process in Surat and he was coming at his

village once in a week. The husband was having suspicion on the

character of the wife. The incident of murder was being occurred on

intervening night on 23.05.2010 and 24.05.2010. The husband

deceased was sleeping in the outside of the house, whereas the

appellant accused went into sleep in the inside the house. On the

day of incident, there was quarrel between the husband and wife.

Due to the said quarrel, the appellant took one plastic ligature and

strangled the deceased by putting ligature around the neck. Not only

that, with an iron weapon, she also inflicted injuries on the stomach.

The incident was come into notice of one Sampathbhai – PW:6 and

accordingly, he transmitted the message to village sarpanch – PW:4

Shankarbhai Gamit. The village sarpanch informed the brother of

the deceased and other persons. In the presence of village sarpanch

and others, the appellant accused made an extrajudicial confession

and explained the manner in which the deceased was done to death.

The FIR came to be lodged by PW.3 Manish Gamit before the

Songadh Police Station and the same came to be registered as I-

C.R.No.48 of 2010 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of

Page 2 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

the Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, the I.O.

went to the place of occurrence and drew the panchnama and

collected the necessary samples for chemical analysis, sent the

death body for postmortem, recovered the clothes of the accused,

seized and recovered the ligature and iron weapon at the disclosure

statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, recorded the

statements of the witnesses, sent the seized articles to the FSL and

after receiving the report thereof, the chargesheet came to be filed

against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302

of the Indian Penal Code.

3.The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Trial Court

framed the charges which the appellant accused denied the charges

and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution, in order to examine the case against the accused,

examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents, as

per the below mentioned tabular.

Oral evidence – 13

PW 1–Exh.8Dr. Parehkumar Sunilbhai, Medical officer

PW 2– Exh.11Dr. Shankarbhai Zinabhai Gamit, Medical officer

PW 3 – Exh.15Manishbhai Premjibhai Gamit, Complainant

PW 4 – Exh.17Shankarbhai Reshamabhai Gamit, Sarpanch of village

PW 5 – Exh.20Savitaben Manishbhai

PW 6 – Exh.21Sampatbhai Gamit, Panch witness

PW 7 – Exh.30Hemaben Sampatbhai Gamit

PW 8 – Exh.31Rajubhai Ajitbhai Gamit

PW 9 – Exh.32Savitriben Maheshbhai Gamit

PW10– Exh.33Premilaben Harishbhai Gamit

PW11– Exh.34Pilajibhai Sukriabhai Gamit, PSO

PW12– Exh.36Ushaben Dolatram Patil, PSO

Page 3 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

PW13– Exh.41Manharbhai Virsinghbhai Patel, IO

Documentary evidence – 15

Exh.10 MLC of the accused

Exh.13 PM report

Exh.14 Panchnama of place of offence

Exh.16 Complaint

Exh.19 Inquest panchnama

Exh.22 Panchnama of recovery of clothes of accused

Exh.28 Discovery panchnama

Exh.24 Arrest panchnama

Exh.35 Station diary entry regarding FIR

Exh.27 Station diary entry regarding arrest

Exh.39 Map of place of offence

Exh.40 Report of scientific officer

Exh.43 List of articles sent to FSL

Exh.46 FSL report

Exh.47 Serology report

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant accused

was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to which, she stated that

she is innocent and is falsely implicated in the false charge of

murder.

6.Though opportunity was extended, no evidence was tendered from

the side of the appellant accused.

Trial Court’s finding:

7.The learned Trial Court, after considering the oral and

documentary evidence, as well as the submissions made on behalf

of the parties, found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment.

The learned Trial Court while recording the conviction mainly

Page 4 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

relied upon the evidence of extrajudicial confession allegedly made

before the village sarpanch PW:4 and others. The Trial Court found

that the extrajudicial confession made is voluntarily and true and

made in a fit state of mind and the same was not by any

inducement, threat and promise.

8.Being aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the judgment of

conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with present

appeal.

9.Evidence adduced by the prosecution:

We would like to have a cursory look at the evidence adduced by

the prosecution through its witnesses:

9.1Dr. Paresh Sunilbhai Tailor (PW:1):This witness being a medical

officer, associated with the Kamrej Health Center, Surat had examined

the accused. The appellant accused was brought before the doctor on

25.05.2010 at about 10:00 a.m. Upon examination of the accused, there

was history of assault and as such, doctor did not find any injury on the

body of the accused. The certificate of examination was produced by the

doctor at Exh.10.

9.2Dr. Shankarbhai Jinabhai Gamit (PW:2): This witness had

conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased Guneshbhai

Gamit. The witness had noticed the following external and internal

injuries on the body of the deceased and the same have been mentioned in

the P.M. report Exh.13.

Page 5 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

External Injuries:

Column 17 Injury 1. A black color ligature mark passing from the

middle part of the throat, running backward, upward to the back of

neck. The ligature mark not completely in circle the neck in back.

Ligature mark is 6mm deep and 5mm broad with petechial hemorrhages

and dry and compressed white band of tissue in the base of mark.

Injury 2. A cut injury about 2.5cm in length, deep to the abdominal

wall. No bleeding swelling and gapping on right side of umbilicus.

A cut injury about 1.5cm deep to skin with no bleeding swelling and

gapping on the right side of umbilicus

Internal Injuries:

Hyperemia of the trachea and epiglottis. Fracture of thyroid cartilage.

Both lungs soft and congested.

In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to asphyxia

resulted by ligature strangulation. It is further opined that this is not a

case of suicide but having regard to the nature of injuries, death was

homicidal. On seeing the seized articles string, it was opined by the

doctor that the ligature as found on the body of the deceased could be

possible by the nylon string. In the cross examination, it is stated by the

witness doctor that the probable time for death being not opined by him.

The doctor admitted that if the person hangs himself, then the death could

be possible by ligature.

9.3Manishbhai Gamit (PW:3):This witness is the elder brother of

the deceased. He has stated that the marriage span was 20 years and

during the marriage span, his brother was blessed by two kids and at the

time of incident, the age of kids were 12 and 8 years respectively. He has

stated that his brother was killed by the appellant accused. He has further

stated that since long, there was a matrimonial dispute, and the reason for

Page 6 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

dispute was illegal relationship of the wife appellant accused. He has

further stated that his brother was working at Surat and once in a week,

he was coming at the house. On the aspect of incident, he stated that on

24.05.2010 at about 01:30 a.m., the incident was occurred and at that

time, he was at his house situated nearby the house of the deceased. He

has stated that he was informed by PW:6 Sampathbhai and thereafter, he

went to his brother’s house where he saw his dead body lying on the cot,

found outside the house. The witness has stated that village sarpanch

Shankarbhai PW:4 was also present at the place. The witness has further

stated that the village sarpanch inquired from the appellant accused about

the incident and in response to that, the appellant accused stated that she

strangulated to death the deceased who was sleeping in the cot outside the

house as on that day, there was quarrel between them and that is why,

deceased was sleeping outside the house and she went to sleep inside the

house. The witness on the basis of said conversation and being a brother

of the deceased, lodged an FIR which he had produced before the Court

at Exh.16.

In the cross examination, he has stated that, he does not have any

information about the illicit relation of the appellant accused. The witness

has denied that, the deceased was not suspecting on the character of the

appellant accused. The witness has admitted that on the day to day affairs

of the family, the relations of the husband and wife were not cordial. The

witness has admitted that in the summer season, generally, the village

people preferred to sleep nearby the house in the open place. The witness

has admitted that the neighbour of his brother also used to sleep near their

house in the open space. The witness has admitted that the neighbours

who were sleeping near the house of his brother did not have heard the

Page 7 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

screaming of his brother. The witness has admitted the facts that, the

village people, in absence of his brother, doubting and seeing the

appellant accused on the other way and that facts were being in the

knowledge of deceased brother. It is denied by the witness that, someone

had quarrel with the deceased and that person had killed him. It is also

denied that, in order to teach the lesson to the appellant accused and

under emotion of sad demise of his brother, he is telling lie against the

appellant.

9.4Shankarbhai Reshmabhai Gamit (PW:4:) This witness at the

time of incident, was serving as a Village Sarpanch and on the day of

incident, in the midnight, he received a phone call from Shantilal

Bhikhabhai and was informed that the deceased has been killed. The

witness in his chief examination has stated that he immediately rushed to

the place of incident. He saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the

cot near the house. The witness has further stated that he asked the

appellant accused that where were you and where was the husband in the

night. In response to the question, the appellant accused has stated that

she was in the house and deceased was sleeping in the outside the house.

The witness has further stated that he has asked the appellant accused that

what happened and explain the incident. The witness has further stated

that the appellant accused told him that there was a quarrel between her

and deceased before the incident and both are suspecting character of

each other. The witness has further stated that the appellant has disclosed

before him that in the night hours, she was having nylon string and by

using it, the deceased was strangulated to death and at that time, deceased

was sleeping on the cot and the said incident has occurred at about 01:30

a.m. The witness has further stated that after knowing the facts of the

Page 8 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

incident from the appellant accused, he went to Songadh Police Station

and informed the police about the incident and the police thereafter came

to the village and arrested the appellant accused and took her to the police

station and at the police station, the brother of the deceased Manishbhai

lodged an FIR. The witness has further stated that she is knowing the

accused and further stated that the injury found on the stomach being

inflicted by the appellant as at the relevant time, she had informed about

it.

In the cross examination, the witness has stated that the informer

Shantilal is the brother in law of the deceased. The witness has further

stated that there were 10 to 12 persons present when he reached at the

place of occurrence. The witness has further stated that his statement was

recorded in the noon hours on the same day and after recording the

statement, it was not read over to him. It is denied by the witness that the

appellant had never confessed before him about the facts of the incident

whatever stated in the chief examination. It is also denied that due to

holding of office of village sarpanch, a false complaint through his

brother being filed at his instance.

9.5Savitaben Manishbhai Gamit (PW:5): This witness was present

when the appellant accused made an extrajudicial confession before

PW:4 Village Sarpanch. The witness in his chief examination has stated

that, the appellant, in the presence of village sarpanch, had stated that due

to dispute with the husband, she got annoyed and killed the deceased by

strangulation with the aid of Nylon String and also caused injuries with

the iron weapon on the stomach.

Page 9 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

In the cross examination, it is denied by the witness that the village

sarpanch PW:4 was dictating the facts of the police statements of all the

persons. It is also denied by the witness that she had no cordial relation

with the appellant accused and that is why, she deposing against her.

9.6Sampathbhai Gamit (PW:6):This witness being a neighbour of

the deceased has stated in his chief examination that on the day of

incident, at about 09:00 p.m., he had heard the screaming of deceased and

his wife as due to matrimonial dispute, they were quarreling and

thereafter, in the midnight, he heard that the appellant was crying and he

along with his wife went to the house of the appellant and at that time, he

saw the presence of village sarpanch and others gathered at the house.

The witness has further stated that he was instructed by village sarpanch

to call upon the brother of the deceased and accordingly, he went to the

house PW:2 Manishbhai and he came at the place of occurrence. The

witness has further stated that on the aspect of incident, i.e. how it was

occurred, the appellant narrated the facts of the incident before the village

sarpanch and by admitting his guilty, she has stated that she had killed the

deceased by strangulation. The witness has referred the inquest

panchnama and seizure of the clothes of the deceased Exhs.19 and 22 and

after referring both the panchnamas, he identified his signature put as a

panch witness. The witness has also referred the discovery panchnama at

Exh.23 and has further stated that the police after preparing the first part

of the panchnama, took his signature on it and on the second part of the

panchnama, his signature being taken at the police station and seized and

recovered the nylon string near the house of the appellant. In the cross

examination, the witness has stated that in his police statement, he had

not disclosed about hearing the screaming of the appellant at the

Page 10 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

midnight. The witness has also admitted that he has no personal

knowledge about the extramarital affairs of the appellant. The witness has

also admitted that the deceased was having habit to consume liquor. The

witness has stated that he has no personal knowledge that under the

influence of the liquor, the deceased was used to quarrel with the

appellant. The witness has further stated that before coming to the Court,

he had meeting with village sarpanch and at his instance, he is deposing

in the Court.

9.7Hemaben Sampatbhai (PW.7), Rajubhai Ajitbhai (PW.8),

Savitriben Maheshbhai Gamit (PW.9), Premilaben Harishbhai (PW.10):

All the witnesses being residents of Village: Doswada, have

deposed against the appellant on the line of witness (PW.4) Shankarbhai

Gamit. The witnesses on the aspect of extrajudicial confession, have

stated that, the appellant-accused had pleaded his guilt before the Village

Sarpanch (PW.4). In such circumstances, we do not deem it fit to refer

their entire oral testimony.

9.8Manhar Virsingh Patel (PW.13):This witness being a P.S.I.,

Songadh Police Station, had investigated the case and after due

investigation, he filed the chargesheet against the appellant. In the chief-

examination, the I.O. has stated that, he was informed by the PW.4 on his

mobile phone about the present case of murder and after receiving the

message, he along with the supporting staff, went to the Village:

Doswada. The witness I.O. has further stated that, the brother of the

deceased PW.3 – Manish Gamit lodged an FIR before him at the place

and the said FIR was sent to Police Station for registration of the offence

Page 11 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

and thereafter, he was entrusted with the investigation. During the

investigation, he prepared an inquest and sent the dead body for post-

mortem and prepared a spot panchnama in the presence of Mobile FSL

Officer, recorded the statements of witnesses, seized the clothes of the

deceased, arrested the appellant-accused, seized the nylon string at the

disclosure statement of the appellant and drew the panchnama in terms of

Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The I.O. has specifically stated that, he

had recorded the statement of deceased’s daughter, sent the seized articles

to the FSL for forensic analysis and lastly, upon completion of

investigation, he laid the chargesheet before the court.

In the cross-examination, the I.O. has admitted that, he noticed the

nail marks injury on the body of the accused. The I.O. has denied that,

from the registration of the FIR and filing of the chargesheet, the PW.4 –

Village Sarpanch had accompanied him. It is also denied that, the

complaint was not filed by the complainant, but it was filed by him. It is

also denied that, at the behest of Sarpanch, the false case being registered

against the appellant and as such, no any confessional statement being

made by the appellant either before the Sarpanch or anyone.

Submissions:

10.Mr. Vinod Gamara, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of

the appellant-accused while assailing the impugned judgment and order

of sentence, made the following submissions:

10.1Learned trial court grossly erred while convicting the accused,

without appreciating the evidence in the right prospective.

10.2That, the entire case largely based on the extra judicial confession

Page 12 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

allegedly made by the accused before PW.4 – Shankarbhai Gamit who at

relevant time, was serving as a Village Sarpanch and having dominance

on the entire village and at his instance, the brother of the deceased

(PW.3) lodged an FIR. It is the case of prosecution that, the appellant

confessed her guilt before PW.4 and while at that time, the family

members, neighbours and villagers were present at the scene of

occurrence. In such circumstances, the alleged confession before the

Sarpanch is not free from local influence, pressure or bias and therefore,

the so called confession is not voluntary, true and credible and the

evidence of Village Sarpanch and others does not inspire confidence on

the aspect of extra judicial confession of the accused and conviction

solely on the basis of extra judicial confession without there being any

corroboration, it is unsafe to rely on such kind of evidence and conviction

on the sole basis of confession is not sustainable in the eye of law and on

this ground alone, the judgment of conviction require to be set aside. In

support of the said submission, heavy reliance being placed on the

judgment of Supreme Court delivered in the case of Sahadevan and Anr.

Vs. State of Tamilnadu (2012) 6 SCC 403), S.K.Yusuf vs. State of

Bengal (2011) 11 SCC 754) and Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi vs. State

of Gujarat (2023 14 SCC 228).

10.3The case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and in the

case of circumstantial evidence, the motive assumes significance. In the

present case, the deceased was suspecting that, his wife had an affair with

someone and on this ground, the quarrel being occurred off and on

between the appellant and deceased. The witnesses have made general

allegations that, deceased was having suspicion on the character of the

appellant, but with whom she had an extra marital affair, that has not

Page 13 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

come on record and therefore, motive is not established by the

prosecution for the appellant to commit murder of her husband.

10.4The discovery and recovery of nylon string is not proved and

established as mandated under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Neither

the panchas of the panchnama (Exh.23) have deposed as per the contents

of the panchnama, nor the I.O. has deposed that, at the voluntary

disclosure statement of the accused, the nylon string being discovered at

the instance of the accused. It is necessity of the law that, the I.O. has to

depose the exact words uttered by the accused at the police station and

thereafter, it is obligatory on his part to prove the contents of the

discovery panchnama. Thus, the discovery of nylon string cannot be

taken into consideration as the discovery panchnama as well as

disclosure statement has not been proved in accordance with law.

10.5The conviction is based only on suspicion which cannot be sustain

as suspicion cannot replace the proof.

11.In such circumstances as referred above, Mr. Gamara, learned

counsel has submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of

murder against the accused by adducing cogent and credible evidence

beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he prayed that, there being merits

in the appeal and same may be allowed and further requested that, the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the

appellant may be acquitted of the charge of murder.

12.On the other hand, opposing the appeal, Mr. Bhargav Pandya,

learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that, the trial court has

not committed any error in holding the appellant-accused guilty of the

Page 14 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

offence. on the fateful night, the appellant was annoyed on the aspect of

suspecting his character by the accused and with premeditated mind, she

procured the nylon string in her possession and when the deceased was in

deep sleep, he was strangulated to death. The neighbours heard the

screaming and assembled at the place. The presence of Village Sarpanch

(PW.4) was natural and being a Head of the village, it was his duty to

inquire from the appellant about the incident and in natural way, the

appellant confessed before him that, she had killed her husband because

of day-to-day matrimonial disputes as the deceased was suspecting her

character. Therefore, the confession before the Village Sarpanch cannot

be termed to be under pressure or it was an outcome of influence. There

is no reason or motive for the Sarpanch (PW.4) to falsely implicate the

appellant-accused and therefore, the confession being made voluntarily

and it reflects the true affairs of the incident as on the fateful night, the

appellant being a wife, was in the house and despite of this, she did not

offer any explanation about the manner of incident. The seizure of nylon

string would further strengthen the prosecution case and the evidence of

extra judicial confession would corroborated by such seizure of nylon

string and all the witnesses consistently stated that, the deceased was

having suspicion on the character of the accused and on this ground, there

was a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife and it was the

motive to kill the deceased. In such circumstances, it is prayed that, the

prosecution has succeed in proving the charge of murder by adducing

cogent and credible evidence and thus, it was further urged that, there

being no merits in the appeal and same may be dismissed.

Analysis & Discussion:

Page 15 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

13.We have considered the submissions advanced by learned

advocates appearing for the respective parties, perused the case records

and impugned judgment.

14.In the facts of the present case, the prosecution has relied upon (a)

extra judicial confession of the accused allegedly made before PW.4 –

Shankarbhai Gamit and other witnesses, (b) recovery of nylon string at

the instance of the appellant-accused, (c) the evidence of motive that the

deceased had a quarrel with the appellant with respect to her extra marital

affair which was the reason for family dispute and the appellant was

annoyed and fed up with such kind of allegations.

15.It is necessary to briefly examine law relating to extra judicial

confession as the basis of conviction is mainly on the extra judicial

confession made before PW.4 and others.

In the case of Pawankumar Chaurasia vs. State of Bihar (2023

SCC Online SC 259), in paragraph-5, it was held thus:

“5.As far as extra judicial confession is concerned, the law is

well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a

conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra judicial

confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary

and truthful. It should be free from any inducement. The

evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to

whom it is made. Going by natural course of human conduct,

normally a person would confide about a crime committed by him

only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a

person would not make a confession to someone who is totally

stranger to him. Moreover, the court has to be satisfied with the

Page 16 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in

which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required.

However, if an extra judicial confession is corroborated by other

evidence on record, it acquires more credibility.”

In the case of Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi vs. State of Gujarat

(2023 14 SCC 228), in para-7 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held

and observed that,

“When prosecution relies upon the evidence of extra judicial

confession, normally, the court will expect that, the evidence of the

person before whom extra judicial confession is allegedly made,

must be of sterling quality.”

In the case of S. Arul Raja vs. State of Tamilnadu (2010 8 SCC

233), in para-55 of the judgment, the Supreme Court laid down that,

“An extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.

Though it can be made the basis of conviction, due care and

caution must be exercised by the courts to ascertain the

truthfulness of the confession. Rules of caution must be applied

before accepting an extra judicial confession. Before the court

proceed to act on the basis of an extra judicial confession, the

circumstances under which it is made, the manner in which it is

made and the person to whom it is made, must be considered along

with the two rules of caution: (i) whether the evidence of

confession is reliable and (ii) whether it finds corroboration?”

16.Reverting to the case in hand, the issue arise for our consideration

whether the extra judicial confession of an offence made by the accused

Page 17 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

before PW.4 does inspire confidence, truthful and can be basis for

conviction.

17.There is no dispute that, on the fateful night, the deceased

Guneshbhai was sleeping on the cot at the front side of his house and the

appellant being a wife was sleeping inside the house. The marriage span

was 20 years or more. The elder daughter was also there in the house and

as per the testimony of the I.O., her statement was also recorded. We

have understood the topography of the place from the sketch prepared by

the Revenue Officer. The map shows that, nearby the place of incident,

people of the village residing in their respective houses and the area was

thickly populated. According to prosecution case, the deceased was

strangulated to death by nylon string and while strangulating the

deceased, he might have screamed and tried to escape from the clutches

of the appellant-accused. The witnesses who were residing adjacent to the

house of the deceased, did not have stated in clear terms that, in the

midnight, they heard the screaming of the deceased. On the contrary, they

have heard the crying of the appellant and after hearing the voice of the

appellant, they went to the house of the appellant. In these background

facts, the persons who were gathered near the house of the appellant,

waited till arrival of Village Sarpanch (PW.4) and during that period, no

one had asked the appellant that what was happen and who had killed the

deceased. Admittedly, PW.4 being a Village Sarpanch, having influence

over the local villagers and after his arrival, the appellant, in the presence

of 10 to 15 people, alleged to have confessed her guilt i.e. made

confessional statement stating that she had killed the deceased by

strangulation. In our opinion, we have serious doubt about the

genuineness and truthfulness of the prosecution case regarding evidence

Page 18 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

of extra judicial confession. At the first point of time, before the

neighbours, the appellant did not have disclosed anything, nor she was

asked to disclose the true facts of the incident and when the Village

Sarpanch arrived at the home, she made a confession before him. This

shows that, under the influence and pressure of PW.4, she made an extra

judicial confession. If Village Sarpanch would not have arrived at the

place of incident, then she might not have confessed her guilt by making

extra judicial confession. Thus, the surrounding circumstances and the

manner in which the alleged confession being made before the PW.4, the

reasonable inference would arise that, the appellant was under pressure

and made a statement under the influence of PW.4 and if that is so, then,

the extra judicial confession cannot be said to be voluntary, free and

truthful and therefore, when the extra judicial confession is not supported

by a chain of cogent circumstances and corroborated by other prosecution

evidence, the conviction for the offence of murder cannot be made on the

evidence of extra judicial confession. In nutshell, our conclusion is that,

the evidence of extra judicial confession made before PW.4 does not

inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon.

18.The another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the

discovery and recovery of nylon string. We have carefully examine the

evidence of panch witnesses of discovery panchnama (Ex.23). The

appellant was under police custody. According to prosecution case, on the

basis of voluntary statement of the accused, she pointed out the place

where the nylon string was being thrown by her and on her statement,

there was a recovery of nylon string allegedly used in the commission of

crime. The panch witnesses have not stated that, the accused while in the

police custody, on her own free will and volition made a statement that,

Page 19 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

she would like to point out the place where she had threw the nylon string

and after recording the said statement in the preliminary panchnama, the

appellant-accused pointed out the place and same proceedings being

reduced into writing in the second part of the panchnama. The I.O.

(PW.13) has also not deposed that the accused at the preliminary stage,

made a voluntary statement to point out the place where the nylon string

was thrown by her. It is thus clear that, the recovery of nylon string

cannot be relied upon as no confessional statement of the appellant-

accused is proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In this regard,

we may profitably refer the case of Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh (2022 SC Online 1396). It is relevant to refer

para-51 to 56 which reads as under:

“51. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24.01.2010 the accused

appellant was picked up by the investigating officer from nearby a bus

stand and was arrested in connection with the alleged crime. After the

arrest of the accused appellant and while he being in the custody at the

police station, he is said to have on his own free will and volition made a

statement that he would like to point out the place where he had

hidden the weapon of offence (Banka) and his bloodstained clothes

after the commission of the alleged crime. According to him, after such

statement was made by the accused appellant, he along with his

subordinates set forth for the place as led by the accused. There is

something very unusual, that we have noticed in the oral evidence of

the investigating officer. According to him while the police party along

with the accused were on their way, all of a sudden, the investigating

officer realized that he should have two independent witnesses with

him for the purpose of drawing the panchnama of discovery. In such

circumstances, while on the way the investigating officer picked up PW-

2, Chhatarpal Raidas and Pratap to act as the panch witnesses.

According to the investigating officer the accused led them to a

coriander field and from a bush he took out the weapon of offence

(Banka) and the bloodstained clothes. The weapon of offence and the

bloodstained clothes were collected in the presence of the two panch

witnesses and the panchnama Exh. 5 was accordingly drawn. The

weapon of offence and the blood stained clothes thereafter were sent

for the Serological Test to the Forensic Science laboratory. We are of

the view that the Courts below committed a serious error in relying

Page 20 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

upon this piece of evidence of discovery of a fact, i.e., the weapon &

clothes at the instance of the accused as one of the incriminating

circumstances in the chain of other circumstances. We shall explain here

below why we are saying so.

52. Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads thus:

“27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.

—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in

consequence of information received from a person accused of any

offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information,

whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the

fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

53. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant

while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that

he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence

along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the

investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent

witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent

witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the

accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may

desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have

hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody

makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch

witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the

accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that

the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first

part of the panchnama for the purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence

Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the

independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular

statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his

own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of

offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had

been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed

thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two

independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the

particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular

place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or

any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would

form the second part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects the

investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence

of the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in

all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter.

Page 21 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

54. The reason why we are not ready or rather reluctant to accept the

evidence of discovery is that the investigating officer in his oral evidence

has not said about the exact words uttered by the accused at the police

station. The second reason to discard the evidence of discovery is that

the investigating officer has failed to prove the contents of the

discovery panchnama. The third reason to discard the evidence is that

even if the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer is accepted

as it is, what is lacking is the authorship of concealment. The fourth

reason to discard the evidence of the discovery is that although one of

the panch witnesses PW2, Chhatarpal Raidas was examined by the

prosecution in the course of the trial, yet has not said a word that he

had also acted as a panch witness for the purpose of discovery of the

weapon of offence and the blood stained clothes. The second panch

witness namely Pratap though available was not examined by the

prosecution for some reason. Therefore, we are now left with the

evidence of the investigating officer so far as the discovery of the

weapon of offence and the blood stained clothes as one of the

incriminating pieces of circumstances is concerned. We are conscious of

the position of law that even if the independent witnesses to the

discovery panchnama are not examined or if no witness was present at

the time of discovery or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on

the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the

document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted

and the discovery evidence unreliable. In such circumstances, the Court

has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who deposed to

the fact of discovery based on the statement elicited from the accused

on its own worth.

55. Applying the aforesaid principle of law, we find the evidence of the

investigating officer not only unreliable but we can go to the extent to

saying that the same does not constitute legal evidence.

56. The requirement of law that needs to be fulfilled before accepting

the evidence of discovery is that by proving the contents of the

panchnama. The investigating officer in his deposition is obliged in law

to prove the contents of the panchnama and it is only if the

investigating officer has successfully proved the contents of the

discovery panchnama in accordance with law, then in that case the

prosecution may be justified in relying upon such evidence and the trial

court may also accept the evidence. In the present case, what we have

noticed from the oral evidence of the investigating officer, PW7,

Yogendra Singh is that he has not proved the contents of the discovery

panchnama and all that he has deposed is that as the accused expressed

his willingness to point out the weapon of offence the same was

discovered under a panchnama. We have minutely gone through this

part of the evidence of the investigating officer and are convinced that

by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the investigating

officer has proved the contents of the discovery panchnama (Exh.5).

There is a reason why we are laying emphasis on proving the contents

Page 22 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

of the panchnama at the end of the investigating officer, more

particularly when the independent panch witnesses though examined

yet have not said a word about such discovery or turned hostile and

have not supported the prosecution. In order to enable the Court to

safely rely upon the evidence of the investigating officer, it is necessary

that the exact words attributed to an accused, as statement made by

him, be brought on record and, for this purpose the investigating officer

is obliged to depose in his evidence the exact statement and not by

merely saying that a discovery panchnama of weapon of offence was

drawn as the accused was willing to take it out from a particular place.”

Applying the aforesaid principle of law to the facts of the present

case, we find that, the recovery of nylon string on the basis of

confessional statement made in terms of Section 27 of Evidence Act

having not been proved and established pointing towards the involvement

of the applicant in the alleged crime.

19.The third circumstance as relied by the prosecution is the motive to

kill the deceased. It is the case of prosecution that, the deceased had

suspicion in his mind that, the appellant-wife was maintaining extra

marital affair and on this ground, the relationship of the husband-wife

were not cordial and due to this allegation, the appellant-wife got

annoyed and decided to kill the deceased. The prosecution case rests on

the circumstantial evidence as no one had witnessed the incident. It is

settled position of law that, where there is a clear proof for the crime, that

lends additional support to the findings of the court that the accused was

guilty, but absence of clear motive, does not necessarily lead to the

contrary conclusion. The motive looses all its importance in case where

direct evidence of eye witness is available. However, in a case based on

circumstantial evidence, motive assumes pertinent significance as

existence of the motive is an enlightening factor in a process of

presumptive reasoning in such a case. The absence of motive, however,

Page 23 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

puts the court on its guard to scrutinize the circumstances more

carefully to ensure that suspicion and conjectures do not take place of

legal proof. (Munish Mubar vs. State of Haryana (2012 10 SCC 464).

20.Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the deceased was

working at Surat and was coming once in a week at his village Doswada

and the appellant-wife with two kids, remained at the village. None of the

witnesses have clarified that, with whom the appellant was maintaining

relationship. It is no doubt true that, since long, the relations of the

husband-wife were not cordial, but at the same time, when the

prosecution is coming with a specific case that the husband deceased was

having suspicion on the character of the wife, then, bald allegation of

character is not sufficient, but it should be proved by cogent evidence

that, in absence of deceased husband, she used to visit xyz house or xyz

person were coming to the house of the appellant. In such circumstances,

in our opinion, the allegation of character being made on the basis of

suspicion which in our opinion, cannot take place of proof. Thus, the

motive on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased has not been

proved by leading acceptable evidence.

21.For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the view that, the

prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge of murder against the

appellant by acceptable, cogent and credible evidence. The judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant-accused is

not sustainable in law and accordingly deserves to be set aside and are

hereby set aside.

22.In the result, the conviction appeal filed by the appellant stands

allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

Page 24 of 25

R/CR.A/1922/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/02/2026

11.01.2012, passed in Sessions Case No.43 of 2010 is hereby set aside.

The appellant-accused stands acquitted of the offence under Section 302

Indian Penal Code. The appellant-accused is on bail. The bail bond stands

cancelled and surety is discharged. There is no need for the appellant to

surrender to the jail authority. The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded

to the appellant. R & P be sent back forthwith to the trial court.

Sd/-

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

Sd/-

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)

TAUSIF SAIYED

Page 25 of 25