2025 INSC 147 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2013

RAMU APPA MAHAPATAR APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the

judgment and order dated 02.12.2010 passed by the High Court

of Bombay at Bombay (High Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 252 of

2005 (Ramu Appa Mahapatar Vs. State of Maharashtra) whereby

the High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 252 of 2005 filed by

the appellant.

2. Be it stated that the aforesaid criminal appeal was

preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2004

passed by the First Ad-hoc Additional District and Sessions Judge,

2

Thane (Sessions Judge) in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2004 whereby

and whereunder appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1861 (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment (RI) for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default

to suffer RI for 3 months.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that appellant lived with

deceased Manda; it was a live-in relationship. Both of them were

living in a chawl of PW-1 Ravinder Gopal Jadhav, who was the

landlord. Appellant informed PW-1 that his wife had expired and

that he was going to her parents’ house at Dipchale village to

inform them. Thereafter, appellant alongwith his son went to

Dipchale village where appellant met the brother of the deceased,

Bhagwan i.e. PW-3. Appellant told PW-3 in the presence of

Shankar PW-6, Pandhari PW-5 and Chanda Bai PW-4 that there

was a quarrel between him and Mand a following which he had

assaulted Manda who succumbed to the injuries.

3.1. Before the appellant could come back to his village

Kudus alongwith the relatives of the deceased, PW-1 had already

opened the door of the house which was bolted from outside. On

opening of the door PW-1 noticed that Manda was lying dead with

multiple bleeding injuries. Her mangalsutra and glass bangles

3

were broken; some of the household articles were strewn around

on the ground. When appellant reached the place of incident

alongwith the relatives of the deceased Manda, PW-1 enquired

from him about the incident. At that stage, appellant told PW-1

that deceased Manda had suspected that he (appellant) was having

illicit relation with some other woman. This resulted in a quarrel

in the course of which appellant had assaulted Manda with the

help of a grinding stone and a stick.

3.2. PW-1 then lodged First Information Report (FIR) before

the police station whereafter offence under Section 302 IPC was

registered against the appellant.

3.3. Investigating officer carried out the investigation in the

course of which he drew inquest panchanama, spot panchanama

and made seizure of various articles from the place of incident.

Appellant was arrested. The weapon of assault was seized. On

completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the

appellant charging him for committing an offence punishable

under Section 302 IPC.

4. Learned Sessions Judge read over and explained the

charge to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed

to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses.

4

It was a case of circumstantial evidence. Prosecution relied upon

the extra-judicial confession of the appellant made before PW-1

Ravindra, PW-3 Bhagwan, PW-4 Chandabai and PW-6 Shankar.

After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge

vide the judgment and order dated 15.10.2004 convicted the

appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI

for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer RI

for another 3 months.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence,

appellant preferred appeal before the High Court being Criminal

Appeal No. 252 of 2005. By the judgment and order dated

02.12.2010 (impugned judgment), High Court dismissed the

appeal of the appellant. Consequently, conviction and sentence of

the appellant have been affirmed.

6. This Court by order dated 21.09.2012 had issued notice

in the related petition for special leave to appeal (criminal). Leave

was granted vide the order dated 15.04.2013. Hence, the present

appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us to the

evidence of PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 and submits that the

extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant before

5

the above witnesses could not be accepted as a valid piece of

evidence. Extra-judicial confession itself is a weak piece of

circumstantial evidence. From the testimony of the above

witnesses, it is clearly evident that no credence could be given to

the theory of extra-judicial confession. Such confession does not

inspire any confidence. Beyond the extra-judicial confession, there

was no material on record to link the appellant with the death of

the deceased. Learned trial court as well as the High Court had

erred in placing reliance on the so-called extra-judicial confessions

and basing the conviction of the appellant on such evidence. He,

therefore, submits that conviction of the appellant is wholly

unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Resultantly, the appeal

should be allowed.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports

the impugned judgment of the High Court. According to him, there

is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 4 and 6.

Therefore, the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant

on the basis of confessional statement made by the appellant

before the above witnesses. High Court had rightly affirmed such

conviction and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge. He submits

6

that there is no case for interference with the concurrent findings.

Therefore, the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties

have received the due consideration of the Court.

10. PW-1 is the informant Ravindra; he is the owner of the

chawl in which accused used to stay as the tenant alongwith his

‘wife’ and son. On 21.03.2003 at about 06:15 AM, accused came

to the residence of PW-1 alongwith his son and informed PW-1 that

his wife had expired. Thereafter, the accused went to the house of

the parents of his wife to call her relatives. PW-1 stated that he

had gone to the house of the accused alongwith his brother and

found that it was bolted from outside. Alongwith his brother

Shyam Rao Gopal Jadhav, PW-1 opened the door and saw that wife

of the accused was lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood.

10.1. Accused brought the brother of the deceased and 4/5

persons. They also saw the dead body. At that stage, PW-1 and his

brother enquired with the accused who told them that he had

assaulted the deceased with a grinding stone.

7

10.2. According to PW-1, he went to the police station and

lodged the first information which he proved in the court alongwith

its contents.

10.3. In cross-examination, he stated that the accused had

only told him that his wife had expired. He had talked with the

accused for about five minutes. Accused told him that he was going

to call her relatives.

10.4. PW-1 denied the suggestion that accused was in a

confused state of mind. He stated that he did not feel it necessary

to inform the police immediately. He lodged the information

between 12 noon to 12:15 PM. He also denied the suggestion that

the accused had told him that some people had come in the night

and had assaulted him and his wife whereafter they ran away. He

further denied the suggestion that accused had told him that

somebody had killed his wife and had also assaulted him.

11. PW-3 is Bhagwan. He is the brother of the deceased

Manda. On 21.09.2003 at 07:30 AM, he was sitting alongwith

Maruti, Pandu Ram Thorat and Shankar Rama Bhoye in front of

his house. At that time, accused came alongwith his son Kiran. He

told them that there was a quarrel between him and deceased

Manda because of which he had assaulted Manda . As a result of

8

the injuries sustained, she died. Hearing this, PW-3 alongwith

Maruti, Pandu Ram Thorat and Shankar Rama Bhoye went with

the accused to his village.

11.1. When they reached the house of the accused, they found

that the landlord (PW-1) was present there. They saw Manda lying

dead in a pool of blood. She had injuries on her head, forehead and

face. Her saree was soaked in blood and food was strewn around.

Accused told them that he had assaulted the deceased with a

grinding stone and a wooden stick. Thereafter, they alongwith the

landlord (PW-1) went to the police station.

11.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that the accused

and the deceased were not married but were staying together. The

deceased used to complain to him that accused was beating her.

11.3. Accused told PW-3 and the others that Manda had

expired whereupon he was asked as to how she had expired.

Though Manda was the younger sister of PW-3, he did not ask the

accused whether any complaint was lodged with the police. Maruti

Thorat and Pandu Ram Thorat , who are the maternal uncles of

PW-3, were present when PW-3 made enquiries with the accused.

He had told his maternal uncles Maruti and Pandu Ram to

handover the accused to the police.

9

11.4. PW-3 denied the suggestion that he was not sure as to

whether the accused was speaking lies. Since he was to verify as

to whether Manda had died, therefore they did not handover the

accused to the police. PW-3 clearly stated that when the accused

came, he was in a confused state of mind and he did not take tea.

His clothes were not torn or blood stained. Accused had brought

one mini door rickshaw and in that, PW-3 and the others went to

his house. According to PW-3, he had stated before the police that

accused had told him that he had assaulted Manda with a grinding

stone and had killed her but did not know why it was not written.

11.5. PW-3 stated that they reached the house of the accused

around 10:00 AM and thereafter they alongwith the landlord went

to the police station to lodge complaint. He denied the suggestion

that the accused had never told him about his quarrel with his wife

and that he had assaulted her because of which she died. He also

denied the suggestion that accused had told him that in the night,

some thieves had come and that they had assaulted him and

Manda.

12. Chandabai is PW-4. She is the wife of PW-3. According

to her, on 21.09.2003 in the morning, her husband was chatting

with Shankar, Maruti and Pandu Ram. Meanwhile, the accused

10

came there alongwith his son Kiran and told them that he had

quarrelled with Manda because of which he had assaulted her and

she died. Leaving behind his son Kiran with PW -4, accused

alongwith husband of PW-4 i.e. PW-3 and others went to Kudus

i.e. the village of the accused.

12.1. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was

residing alongwith her husband PW-3, their three children and

now with Kiran, son of the accused. On the day of the incident, her

husband PW-3 was sitting outside their home after his breakfast.

She stated that she did not directly talk with the accused but came

to know about the incident. She denied the suggestion that she

only came to know about the incident when her husband PW-3

told her that Manda was assaulted. She denied the suggestion that

accused had told her that on that fateful night, 3/4 persons

entered their house and had assaulted Manda when the accused

ran away alongwith his son from the house. She further denied the

suggestion that in the morning, accused had come and found that

Manda had died and therefore he informed the landlord and

thereafter to PW-4 and others.

12.2. She denied the suggestion that the accused also had

injuries and that his clothes were torn.

11

13. PW-6 Shankar was sitting on the steps of the house of

Bhagwan i.e. PW-3 in the morning of 21.09.2003 alongwith

Bhagwan, Maruti and Pandu Ram. Accused came there at about

07:30 AM. He had come in a rickshaw alongwith his son. Accused

told Bhagwan that he had quarrelled with Manda during which he

had assaulted her and that she had died.

13.1. PW-6 stated that son of the accused was kept with the

wife of Bhagwan whereafter they all went to the residence of the

accused at Kudus. In the house of the accused, they saw that

Manda had already expired. She had injuries on her forehead,

head and back. They also saw that bangles and mangal sutra were

broken and that there was splattering of blood.

13.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that accused was

with them for about half an hour to 45 minutes. He did not know

the accused prior to that date. He denied the suggestion that the

clothes of the accused were torn and that the accused was in a

confused state of mind.

13.3. PW-6 further deposed that he had told the police that

accused had told Bhagwan in their presence that he had a quarrel

with Manda in the night but he did not know why it was not written

12

that accused had told so to Bhagwan in his statement by the

police.

13.4. PW-6 denied the suggestion that the accused had told

them that in the night, 3/4 drunk persons had entered their house

whereafter they had assaulted him and when they were about to

assault his son, he ran away with his son.

14. The above four are the witnesses who had deposed that

the accused had stated before the informant (PW-1) and PW-3 that

he had a quarrel with Manda because of which he assaulted her

with a grinding stone and a stick following which she died. There

is no dispute about the multiple injuries seen on the body of the

deceased or the homicidal nature of the death of the deceased.

Question for consideration is whether on the strength of the

evidence of the above four witnesses, the accused can be linked

with the offence and as to whether it can be said that the charge

against the accused of committing murder of the deceased stood

conclusively proved beyond all reasonable doubt?

15. Before we analyse the evidence of the above witnesses,

it is necessary to briefly examine the law relating to extra-judicial

confession as the present is a case of extra-judicial confession

13

allegedly made by the accused before PW-1 and PW-3 which were

endorsed by PW-4 and PW-6.

16. Extra-judicial confession of an offence made by the

accused before a witness is one of the several instances of

circumstantial evidence; there are other circumstances, such as,

the theory of last seen together; conduct of the accused before or

immediately after the incident; human blood being found on the

clothes or person of the accused which matches with that of the

accused; leading to discovery, recovery of weapon etc. As we know,

circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but

consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely

associated with the fact in issue that taken together, they form a

chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal

fact can be legally inferred or presumed. The chain must be

complete and each fact forming part of the chain must be proved.

It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case

rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be

justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances

are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or

the guilt of any other person. The circumstances would not only

have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, those would also have

14

to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought

to be inferred from those circumstances. All these circumstances

should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of

evidence. The proved circumstances must be consistent only with

the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent

with his innocence. The circumstances taken cumulatively must

be so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that

within all human probability the crime was committed by the

accused and none else. While there is no doubt that conviction can

be based solely on circumstantial evidence but great care must be

taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence. If the evidence relied

upon is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of

the accused must be accepted.

17. In State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram

1, this Court

explained the concept of extra-judicial confession. Confession may

be divided into two classes i.e. judicial and extra-judicial. Judicial

confessions are those which are made before a magistrate or a

court in the course of judicial proceedings. Extra-judicial

confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than

before a magistrate or a court. Extra-judicial confessions are

1

(2003) 8 SCC 180

15

generally those that are made by a party before a private individual

who may be a judicial officer also in his private capacity. As to

extra-judicial confessions, two questions arise: firstly, whether

they are made voluntarily and secondly, are they true? If the court

is of the opinion that the confession was not made voluntarily but

was a result of an inducement, threat or promise, it would not be

acted upon. It follows that a confession would be voluntary if it is

made by the accused in a fit state of mind and if it is not caused

by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the

charge against him proceeding from a person in authority .

Whether or not the confession was voluntary would depend upon

the facts and circumstances of each case judged in the light of

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (briefly ‘the Evidence

Act’ hereinafter). The law is clear that a confession cannot be used

against an accused person unless the court is satisfied that it was

voluntary. At that stage, the question whether it is true or false

does not arise. If the facts and circumstances surrounding the

making of a confession appear to cast a doubt on the veracity and

voluntariness of the confession, the court may refuse to act upon

the confession even if it is admissible in evidence. The question

whether a confession is voluntary or not is always a question of

16

fact. A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest

credit because it is presumed to flow from the highest sense of

guilt.

17.1. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and

made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The

confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of

the evidence as to confession like any other evidence depends upon

the reliability of the witness to whom it is made and who gives the

evidence. Extra-judicial confession can be relied upon and

conviction can be based thereon if the evidence about the

confession comes from a witness who appear to be unbiased, not

even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom

nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may

have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the

accused. The words spoken by the witness should be clear,

unambiguous and unmistakenly convey that the accused is the

perpetrator of the crime and that nothing is omitted by the witness

which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the

witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the

extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of

a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.

17

17.2. If the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is

found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility

and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. The

requirement of corroboration is a matter of prudence and not an

invariable rule of law.

18. In Sansar Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan

2, this Court

accepted the admissibility of extra-judicial confession and held

that there is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial confession can

never be the basis of a conviction although ordinarily an extra-

judicial confession should be corroborated by some other material.

19. Evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession was

again examined in detail by this Court in Sahadevan Vs. State of

Tamil Nadu

3. That was also a case where conviction was based on

extra-judicial confession. This Court held that in a case based on

circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to

prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point

towards the guilt of the accused. That apart, in a case of

circumstantial evidence where the prosecution relies upon an

extra-judicial confession, the court has to examine the same with

2

(2010) 10 SCC 604

3

(2012) 6 SCC 403

18

a greater degree of care and caution. An extra-judicial confession,

if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied

upon by the court. However, the confession will have to be proved

like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession like

any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to

whom it has been made.

19.1. This Court acknowledged that extra-judicial confession

is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the court intends to base a

conviction on an extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the

same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution

evidence. If the extra-judicial confession suffers from material

discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to

be cogent, such evidence should not be considered. This Court

held as follows:-

14. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that

extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.

Wherever the court, upon due appreciation of the entire

prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an

extra-judicial confession, it must ensure that the same

inspires confidence and is corroborated by other

prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra-judicial

confession suffers from material discrepancies or

inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent

as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the

19

court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such

circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling

such evidence out of consideration.

19.2. Upon an indepth analysis of judicial precedents, this

Court in Sahadevan (supra) summed up the principles which

would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of

evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused:

(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by

itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater

care and caution.

(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

(iii) It should inspire confidence.

(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility

and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of

cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by

other prosecution evidence.

(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of

conviction, it should not suffer from any material

discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any

other fact and in accordance with law.

20. Having surveyed the principles governing the

acceptability and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession,

we may now advert to such confession made by the accused before

PW-1, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6. It is on record that PW-3 in his cross-

20

examination was quite categorical in deposing that he found the

accused to be in a confused state of mind. This factum has also

come on record in the testimony of the other witnesses before

whom such confession was made. In other words, the accused was

not in a fit state of mind when he made the extra -judicial

confession before PW-3. That apart, there were no blood stains on

the clothes worn by the accused; not to speak of any such blood

samples matching with the blood of the deceased. While various

articles were seized from the place of occurrence, there was no

recovery of any blood-stained clothes. There is no evidence on

record that the grinding stone was recovered or that there were any

blood stains on the recovered stick, not to speak of such blood

stains matching the blood of the deceased. Moreover, we find the

conduct of the accused to be quite strange; instead of confessing

his guilt before the police or any other authority, he first goes to

PW-1, the landlord, and tells him about the death of Manda ;

further telling him that he was on his way to the residence of the

brother of Manda (PW-3) to inform him about the development. He

goes to the residence of PW-3 alongwith his son in a rickshaw and

tells PW-3 about the death of Manda following assault on her by

him. This he stated to PW-3 before PW-4 and PW-6. What is more

21

strange is the reaction or non-reaction of PW-3 when the accused

confessed before him that he had killed his sister Manda. This is

not at all a normal behaviour of a brother. He would have certainly

reacted strongly when he heard the accused saying that he had

killed his sister. Instead of any such reaction, as per the

prosecution case, PW-3 accompanied the accused back to his

residence. Further, PW-4 stated in her cross-examination that she

did not talk with the accused directly but came to know about the

incident. This clearly puts her testimony under a cloud.

21. There is one more aspect which we would like to flag off.

From the evidence on record, we find that there is a clear material

omission in the cross-examination of PW-3. According to the

testimony of PW-3, he had stated before the police that the accused

had told him that he had assaulted Manda with a grinding stone

and had killed her but the same was not recorded by the police in

his statement under Section 161 of t he Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Similarly, PW-6 in his deposition stated

that he had told the police that the accused had told Bhagwan

(PW-3) in his presence that he had a quarrel with Manda in the

night but the police did not record in his statement under Section

161 Cr.P.C.

22

22. From the above, it is evident that not only the extra-

judicial confession of the accused lacks credibility as PW-3 is

clearly on record stating that the accused was in a confused state

of mind when he confessed before him, the testimonies of PW-3

and PW-6 suffer from material omission. Their statements made

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are at variance with their evidence in

court regarding the confession made by the accused before PW-3.

This Court in Alauddin Vs. State of Assam

4 explained the context

in which an omission occurs and when such an omission amounts

to a contradiction. In the light of the Explanation to Section 162 of

the Cr.P.C., this Court held as follows:

7. When the two statements cannot stand together, they

become contradictory statements. When a witness makes

a statement in his evidence before the court which is

inconsistent with what he has stated in his statement

recorded by the police, there is a contradiction. When a

prosecution witness whose statement under

Section 161(1) or Section 164 of CrPC has been recorded

states factual aspects before the court which he has not

stated in his prior statement recorded under

Section 161(1) or Section 164 of CrPC, it is said that there

is an omission. There will be an omission if the witness

has omitted to state a fact in his statement recorded by

the police, which he states before the court in his

4

(2024) SCC Online SC 760

23

evidence. The Explanation to Section 162 CrPC indicates

that an omission may amount to a contradiction when it

is significant and relevant. Thus, every omission is not a

contradiction. It becomes a contradiction provided it

satisfies the test laid down in the Explanation under

Section 162. Therefore, when an omission becomes a

contradiction, the procedure provided in the proviso to

sub-Section (1) of Section 162 must be followed for

contradicting witnesses in the cross-examination.

23. As observed above, the testimony of the prosecution

witnesses suffers from serious lack of credibility and also hit by

contradictions which strike at the very root of the prosecution

case. No corroborating circumstances have been brought on record

by the prosecution.

24. No doubt there is a strong suspicion against the

appellant and the needle of suspicion qua the death of Manda

points towards him but as is the settled jurisprudence of this

country, suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of hard

evidence. The evidence on the basis of which the prosecution seeks

conviction of the accused i.e. extra-judicial confession made before

the above witnesses lack credibility and hence cannot be relied

upon. Besides, the evidence suffers from material contradiction.

Therefore, it would be wholly unsafe to sustain the conviction of

24

the appellant based on such weak circumstantial evidence which

on the top of it lack credibility.

25. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the

appellant must get the benefit of doubt. In view of the above, the

conviction and sentence of the appellant vide the judgment and

order dated 15.10.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions

Case No. 52 of 2004 as affirmed by the High Court vide the

judgment and order dated 02.12.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal

No. 252 of 2005, are hereby set aside and quashed. Since the

appellant is in detention, he shall be released from custody

forthwith if not required in any other case.

26. Criminal appeal is accordingly allowed.

………………………………J

[ABHAY S. OKA]

………………………………J

[UJJAL BHUYAN]

NEW DELHI;

February 04, 2025.