SITA RAM v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH April 25, 1965 c [A. K. SARKAR, C.J .• J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.) Indian Evidence Act. 1872 (1 of 1872), s. 25-Confessional letter to Police Officer-Admissibitity.
The appellant was convicted for urder under s. 302 Indian Pe- nal Code. The prosecution relied on amongst other materials, a letter. The letter contained a confession and was addressed to the Sub- Inspector. The appellant wrote the letter with the intention that it should be received by the Sub-Inspector, kept it near the dead body and left the l:ouse after locking it. The lock was broken open and the letter was recovered by the Sub-Inspector. In appeal to this Court the admissibility of this letter was challenged. HELD: (Per Curium) There was sufficient material on the re- cord, apart from this letter, establishing the guilt of the appellant. Per Sarkar, C.J. and Mudholkar, J :-The letter was admissible in evidence.
No doubt, the letter contained a confession and \Vas addressed to a police officer. That could not make it a confession made to the po- lice officer which is within the bar created by s. 25 of the Evidence Act. The Police Officer was not nearby when the letter was written or knew that .it was being written. In such circumstances quite ob- viously the letter would not have been a confession to the police offi- cer if the '\Vords "Sub-Inspector" had not b-een written. Nor it can become one in similar circumstances only because the words "Sub- Inspector" has been written there. It would still have not been a confession made to a police officer for the simple reason that it was not so made from any point of view. [267 H-268 Bl
Per Bachawat J.,-The letter was inadmissible in evidence and was a confession made to a police officer. [268 D-E] A confe:;sion to a police officer was within the bar of s. 25, though it was not made in his presence·. A confessional letter written to a P<r lice officer and sent to him by post, m·essenger or otherv,.rise is not outside the ban of s. 25 because the police officer was ignorant of the letter at the moment when it was being written. [268 G]. R. V. Hurrioole, (1876) I.L.R. 1 Cal. 207, approved.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 1964. Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 2, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2531 of 1963 referred No. 160 of 1963.
K. L. Sharma and Harbans Singh, for the appellant 0. l' Rana, for the respondent. L."S5SCI-l 9(a) [!966) SUPP. B.C.R. The Judgment of SARKAR, C.J. and Mt:DHOLKAR, J. was deli- vered by MUDllOLKAR. J.
BACHAWAT, J. delivered a separate Opinion. Modholkar, J. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaon, after convicting the appellant Sita Ram of an offence under s. 302, Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Sindura Rani. has sentenced him to death. The High Court of Allahabad affirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence to one of imprisonment for life.
The fact that Sindura Rani met with a homicidal death is not in dispute. What is. however. contended on b~half of the appeUant is that there is no e"idcncc on the basis of which his conviction could be based. Admilledly there arc no ey~-witnesscs to the occur- rence. The prosecution case against him rests on the followin& material:
(I) motive; 12l opportunity; (3) subsecruent conduct; (<4) false explanation and (5) confessional statements. There is ample evidence on record to show that the relations between the appellant and his wife were very much strained, that Ute two were living apart and that this was because the appellant suspected that his wife was a woman of loose character. This evi- dence consists of the testimony of some near relatives and also of several letters written by the appellant to bis wife Simlura Rani, to his mother-in-law Inder Kaur (P.W. 21 and to his brother-in-law Tilak Raj (P.W. II. The appellant had denied that the letters were in his hand-wr;ting but it has been found by l;>oth the courts below that they were in fact written by him. The finding of each of the ii two courts below that the relations between the appellant and his wife were strained bec;1Use the appdlant not merely suspected the fidelity of his wife but also charged her with unchastity being one of fact cannot be lightly permitted to be questione,1 in an appeal by special leave. r\o ground has been made out by learned counsel which would justify our looking into the evidence for ourselves. Similarly. on the question of opportunity, Sindura Rani who had gone to stay with her people had been asked by the appellant to return home on the pretext that one of their children was ill and accordingly she arrived at Kashipur where the appellant lived only 5 or 6 days prior l<l the incident. Since her return she and the ap- pellant were the only two adult persons Jiving in the house of the appellant. The only other person living with them was their daughter about two years old.
When the Sub-Inspector of Police arrived on the morning of September 15. 1962 after receiving a report that the appellant's house was locked from outside and the crv of a child from inside could be heard. found the outer door of ihe house locked. After breaking it open he found a lantern burning by the side of the dead II body of Sindura Rani. From these facts the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had an SITA RAM v. ATATE (Murl,holkor, J.)
opportunity to commit the murder of his wife Sindura Rani. The appellant's defence that he had gone to Punjab along with one Pritam Singh on September 13, 1962 and could return from there on September 19, has not been accepted by the two courts below in the absence of any material to substantiate it.
In addition to these there is the fact that the appellant could !J not be found till September 19, on which date he surrendered him self before the court. It would be reasonable to infer from this that he was absconding till this date. The explanation which the appel. !ant gave concerning his absence has been rightly rejected as false. In the circumstances there was adequate material before the courts below upon which his conviction could be based.
In addition to this circumstantial evidence the prosecution placed reliance upon Ex. Ka 9. This is a letter elated September 14, 1962 addressed to the 'Sub-Inspector' and bears the signature of the appellant in Urdu. It reads thus:
"I have myselt committed the murder of my wife Smt. Sindura Rani. Nobody else perpetrated this crime. I would appear myself after 20 or 25 days and then will state every- thing. One day the law will extend its hands and will get me arrested. I would surrender myself.
(Sd. in Urdu\ Sita Ram Naroola, 14th September, 1962." On the back of this letter is written the following: '"Tt is the first and the last offence of my life. I have not done any illegal act nor I had the courage to do that, but this woman compelled me to do so and I had to break the law."
This letter was found on a table near the dead body of Sindura Rani. It was noticed by the Sub-Inspector Jagbir Singh. P.W. 16 and seized in the µresence of three persons who attested the seizure memo and were later examined as witnesses in the case. The prose- cution has established satisfactori!v that the letter is in the hand- writing of the appellant and that the signature it bears is also that of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the admissibility of this letter on the ground that it amounts to a confession to a police officer and that. therefore, s 25 of the Evi- dence Act renders it inaclmissihle in evidence. We do not think that the objection is well-founded. No doubt, the letter contains a con- fession and is also addressed to a police officer. That cannot make it a confession made to a police officer which is within the bar created by s. 25 of the Evidence Act. The police officer was not nearby when tile letter •;vas written or knew that it was being written. In such circumstances quite obviously the letter would not SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS.
[IG66] SUPP. s.c.R. ''have been a confession to the police officer if the words "Sub- Inspector" had not been written. Nor do we think it can become one in similar circumstances only because the words "Sub-:lnspec- tor" had been written there. It would still have ·not been a confes- sion made to a police officer for the simple reason that it was not so made from any point of view.
We agree with the High Court, therefore, that the confession contained in Ex. Ka-9 is admissible and that if is an additional· circumstance which can be pressed in aid in support of the charge against the appellant. However, as already stated, even· without this confessional statement there was sufficient material before the courts below on the basis of which the appellant's conviction could be sustained.
The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly· dismissed. Bachawat, J. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act reads: "No confession made to a police offic~r shall be proved D as against a p_ers;m accused of any offence."
In my opinion, the letter, Ex. Ka·9, is a confession made to a police officer, and is not admissible in evidence against the appellant. The . letter contained a confe~sion, and was addressed to the Sub-Inspec- . tor; The appellant wrote the letter with the intention that it should be re..–cived by the Sub-Inspector, kept it on a table near the dead body of his wife and left the house after locking it. The lock was broken open and the letter ·was recovered by the Sub-:Inspector, Kasipur, to whom the letter was written. The Sub-Inspector receiv- ed the letter as effectively as if it was sent to him by post of by a peon.
· · · ·· · · ·- · . It is said that the appelfant made no confession to the Su~" F ·~ Inspector, inasmuch as the· officer was not present near the appel- – !ant when he wrote the Jetter. I do not see why a.confession cannot: be made_ to a police officer unless he is present in the immediate· – vicinity of the accused. A confession can be made to a police officer · by an oral message to him over the telephone or the radio as .also · by a written message communicated to him through :post. messen-: ger or otherwise. The presence or absence of the police officer near·- G . the accused is not decisive on the question whether_ the confession· is hit by s. 25. A confession to a stranger though ·made . in the · · presence of a police officer is not hit by s. 25. On the other hand,~ confession to a police officer is within the ban of s. 25, though it was not made in his p:esence. -A: confessional letter written to a·. police officer and sent to him by post, messenger or otherwise is. H ~: not outside the ban of s.·25 becai:se the po)ice p_l)!c~~-.W:~.~n'?ra.~t_: __ of the letter at the momentwhen 1t.was·JJemgwntten. · •
,:-.:.:.: sIT; i'AM '/', 81'.olTE (Bachawat, J,) 2f)9 In R. V. Hurribo/e('), Garth, C.J. said that s. 25 is an enact- c ment to which the Court should give the fullest effect. He added: "I think it better in construing a section such as the 25th, which was intended as a wholesome protection to the accused, to construe it in its widest and most popular signification." In its widest and most popular signification, the phrase "confession made to a police officer" includes a confession made to a police officer in a letter written to him and subsequently received by him. We should not cut down the wholesome protection of s. 25 by refined arguments.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Courts below were in error in admitting Ex. Ka-9 against the appellant. I, however, agree that, apart from Ex. Ka-9 there are sufficient materials on the record establishing the guilt of the appellant. The appeal must, therefore, fail.
The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. l 1!4!!ii filS :4f::. . –··