Shivajirao Pol Vs. The State of Maharashtra  INSC 31 (22 January 1998)
Justice of India, M. Srinivasan Srinivasan, J.
22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 Present :
the Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Srinivasan Mr. Vijay Kotwal and Mr.
S.R. Chitale, Sr. Advocates, Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar, Mr. S.M. Jadhav and Ms. Abha R.Sharma,
Advocates with them for the appellant. Mr. I.G. Shah, Sr. Advocate, Mr.S.S. Shinde
and Mr. OM Nargolkar, Advocates for the respondent.
following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
pivotal question in this appeal is whether the extra judicial confession made
by the appellant could form the basis of conviction under Section 302 I.P.C.
The question was answered in the negative by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli
but the High Court gave a contrary answer and reversed the judgment of the
Court of Sessions.
the appellant stood convicted and sentenced to death as the High Court opined
that `this case fails in the category of the gravest of grave and rarest in
rare cases'. After hearing the appeal for some time, we decided that the death
sentence awarded to the appellant may not be sustainable whether we accept or
reject the appeal ultimately and passed on order on 6.1.98 that the appellant
be taken out from the Death Cell and be put in the cell meant for life convicts
till further orders. Thereafter we completed the hearing of the appeal.
appellant was a in the Army at 14th Maratha Light Infantry, Aundh Camp, Pune.
He married one Vimal of Hingangaon village in 1980 and had a female child about
a year latter. Vimal was not keeping good health and was found to be suffering
from tuberculosis. She was advised complete bed rest for 6 to 7 months and avoid
sexual intercourse at least for one year. The parents of the appellant were
living in the village Tisangi. Vimal was sent back to her parents but some time
later she was brought back by the appellant and left with his parents.
appellant was allotted the duty of a guard at the residence of Commanding
Officer at Ghorpadi, Pune for 24 hours in rotation in February, 1983. He was
absent from his duty on 9th and 10th February and reported for duty on the 11th
at 1.00 P.M. He gave an explanation for his
absence to the authorities concerned that he had gone to his sister's house at Akurdi,
Pune. As it was found to be unsatisfactory, he was punished under the Army Act.
the meanwhile on 10.2.83, Vimal's father went to Tisangi in response to her
letter requesting him to come immediately. She was not available and the
parents of the appellant could not give an explanation for her absence to his
satisfaction. He went back to his village in a disgusted mood.
13.2.83 a headless dead body was found in a well in Pusegaon Village. The body was in a highly decomposed state.
found that there was only a blouse on the trunk and both the legs were tied
with a green cloth piece. Some injuries were found in the neck and the thumbs
of the hands were found cut. Certain other fingers were also found half cut.
After autopsy, search was made for the head but it could not be found. The fact
was proclaimed by beat of drums in the nearby village so that the trunk of the
body could be identified. But nobody could identify the same and the same was cremated.
17.2.83 the appellant approached some of the superior officers and confessed
before them that he had killed his wife Vimal. He was told by them to put in
writing whatever he wanted to say. He wrote out a confessional statement in
Marathi language and signed below it. The writing was attested by four military
officers. He was kept under watch by the higher authorities in the guarded
military authorities informed the Superintendent of Police at Sangli about the
confessional statement and sent a copy of the same to him. They were requested
to contact the Superintended of Police, Satara as the offence was alleged to
have been committed at Pusegaon in District Satara. The military authorities
communicated to the Superintendent of Police the information on 22.2.83. The
police commenced the investigation and obtained on 2.3.83 a warrant from the
Judicial Magistrate, Kavathe-Mahankal for the arrest and produced before the
Magistrate on 5.3.83. During the interrogation the appellant mentioned the name
of his friend Baban Shankar Suryavanshi as his accomplice. The letter was also
questioned and he offered to make discovery of certain articles namely a Kukhari
and a steel box like a military box. The appellant himself offered to make
discovery of the head of his wife Vimal and as per his statement the head was
recovered from another well in the same village Pusegaon.
the investigation was completed and charges were framed against the appellant
and his friend.
Court of Sessions recorded the following findings:
dead body was that of Vimal, the wife of the appellant whose death was
The appellant had sufficient motive for killing his wife.
The extra judicial confession made by the appellant to the military authorities
The head of the deceased was discovered at the instance of the appellant.
letter muddamal article 20 was written by the appellant to his friend.
the Court of Sessions took the view that the evidence led by the prosecution
ran counter to the contents of the extra judicial confession and the same could
not therefore be relied upon to convict the appellant. In that view, the Court
of Sessions acquitted the accused.
appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and convicted
the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He was sentenced to
death. The High Court however confirmed the acquittal of the other accused.
Before proceeding further it is necessary to set out the statement of extra
judicial confession made by the appellant to the military authorities. It has
been extracted in full in the judgment of the High Court as translated and
placed before it. It reads as follows:
Shipai No. 277/892, am giving in writing as to how I killed my wife as her
behavior was not good and I myself had caught her with another man.
February in the afternoon at 4.00 p.m. I was
on duty at Brigadier Saheb's Bungalow at Ghorpadi, Pune. From there I
straightway came to bus stand and went to Satara by bus. While going I was
carrying one steel box, one Kukari and one rug. High these luggage I reached
home at a 2.00 a.m. on 10th. After reaching home, I
went to the place where my mother , father and wife were sleeping. I woke up my
wife. After that time my mother also woke up. My wife said, "come, I will
prepare tea for you.
my mother that I am taking my wife and she should stay there only. Then, I came
with my wife to the other home. After coming to the other home, I closed the
outer door and also closed the inner door of the room. Then I pretended to
sleep with my wife and pressed her neck.
pressed the neck till she died.
she was dead. I put her in the time box which I had taken with me and covered
with rug. Then at 2.30
a.m. I can't to bus
stop at the platu of Ghat Nagre which is 2- 1/2 miles away from our village.
in the morning at 5.30
a.m. I came to Nagare
Fata by Bombay to Jat bus. At that spot within two
minutes one truck came. I got into the Miraj Railway Station at 10.00 a.m. I boarded a train and got down at Koregaon. I went
to Koregaon bus station in Bullock Cart. Then in the afternoon at 1.00 p.m. I went to Aundh Fata bus stop, which is 2 miles west
of village Puregaon by bus. It was 3.30 in the afternoon.
that time I waited there till night 9 p.m. and after the vehicular and human traffic was stopped, I started my
work. Earlier I had inspected the wells in the area, Then I carried the box to
a gulch (Nala). After reaching the nala, I took out the dead body from the box
and severed the head and both the thumbs. Then I put the body only in a gunny
bag and went to a well. At the well i put two big stones in the gunny bag and
tied the mouth closed of the gunny bag and throw it in the well.
again I came back near the bed. I wrapped the head in a cloth and with that
head went near other well. Then I tied two stones with that head and throw it
in the well.
I tied the thumbs in a cloth and put them in pocket. I washed the box and in
the well. At that time some truck came from Puregaon.
to Satara S.T. station at 10.30 p.m. at night in that truck.
removed the kukri from the box and kept it in the cloth bag which was with me.
I left the box there only and came to W.C. at the Station. In the W.C. I throw
the thumbs and kukari and flushed it.
Phata I burnt her clothes and mixed it in soil. And then at 11.00 p.m. I sat in
the bus and got down at Pune on 11th at 1.00 a.m. Then I went for Guard. Then
there was report. I told the Guard Commander that I had gone to my sister at Akurdi.
Then on 14th at 12.00 noon I came to the Main Line.
given the same statement to Company Commander on 16th.
entire statement is absolutely true.
Vinayak Shivaji Pal No.277/892 Sd/- 17/2/1983"
There is no ambiguity in the above statement. It shows that the appellant
killed his wife. Both the Courts have found that the statement was made
voluntarily by the appellant. The sequence of events shows that at the time
when the appellant made a 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 was biased or inimical to the
appellant. Nothing is brought out in the evidence in respect of the military
officers which may indicate that they had a motive for attributing an
untruthful statement to the appellant. The statement has been proved by one of
the officers to whom it was made. The said officer has been examined as PW 32.
A perusal of the appellant that the statement was obtained from him on
inducement and promise is not true. In such circumstances it is open to the
Court to rest its conclusion on the basis of such statement and no
corroboration is necessary.
State of U.P. Versus M.K. Anthony. AIR 1985 S.C. 48 an extra judicial
confession was made by the accused to his friend. The Court found that the
statement was unambiguous and unmistakably conveyed that the accused was the
perpetrator of the crime. The Court also found that the testimony of the friend
was truthful, reliable and trustworthy. It was therefore held by this Court
that the conviction of the accused on such extra judicial confession was proper
and no corroboration was necessary. It was also held that much importance
should not be given to minor discrepancies and technical errors.
the present case apart from the statement of recovery there is a clinching
circumstance against the appellant. That is, the head of the deceased wife was
recovered from another well situated in the land of another person and the said
recovery was made at the instance of the appellant. The said fact of the head
being in another well was within the exclusive knowledge of the appellant and
if he had not committed the murder he could not have shown the well in which
the head was found. The High Court was therefore perfectly justified in relying
upon the statement of confession and the recovery of the head at the instance
of the appellant for holding that the appellant was guilty of murder.
The High Court is also right in placing reliance on muddamal article 20, a
letter written by the appellant to his friend who was the second accused which
indicated that there was some evil plan between the two.
Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the High Court is
not justified in upsetting the order of acquittal passed by the trial court
when the same was based on several reasons set our therein. It is also argued
that none of the reasons given by the trial court has been independently
considered by the High Court. According to learned counsel each and every
reason found in the judgment of the trial court must be dealt with by the High
Court before it reverses the conclusion of the trial court. It is also argued
that the medical evidence as well as the other circumstantial evidence are
contrary to the contents of the statement of confession made by the appellant
and in the face of such contradictions and Court ought not to have relied on
the extra judicial confession. It is further contended that the High Court ha
sin fact accepted one part of the statement of confession finding it to be
to the learned counsel such a course is not open to the High Court.
have carefully gone through the judgment of both the Courts below and also the
evidence on record. The trial court has given various reasons for not accepting
the extra- judicial confession but all are on the premise that the other
evidence on record is contrary thereto. The High Court has relied upon the crux
of the statement of confession and proceeded on the footing that the other
details mentioned in the statement are not of much relevance and even if there
is a variation between such details and the other evidence on record, it would
be of no consequence. We are in agreement with the view taken by the High
The main contention of the appellant is that in the post mortem examination the
opinion expressed by the doctor is that the death occurred due to haemorrhage
by cutting off the head and that there is no evidence of the strangling of the
deceased by the appellant. There is no merit in this contention. Even if there
had been any mark of strangling, the same would not be visible as the neck was
cut. The body was found in such highly de-composed condition, it would not have
been possible at all for the doctor, who conducted the post mortem, to have
found anything relating to the strangling of the deceased by the appellant.
Further, one important factor should be kept in mind when we consider the
evidence afforded by the post mortem report. When the post mortem was carried
out, the appellant had not made the confession. On seeing the headless trunk,
normally and naturally, the doctor would have proceeded to conduct the post
mortem on the footing that the death occurred on account of the chopping of the
head. In such a situation, the doctor expressed an opinion that death was due
to haemorrhage but it is seen that in the post mortem report there is no
reference to the symptoms which indicated such haemorrhage. The same reasoning
would apply to the opinion of the doctor that the injuries found on the body
were ante mortem.
Our attention has been drawn to some of the passages in the Modi's Textbook of
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, edited by C.A. Franklin, Twenty-first
Edition and also Parikh's Text Book of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology
edited by Dr. C.K. Parikh. None of the passages is of any help in the present
case in view of the facts mentioned above and in particular the circumstance
that the body was highly de-composed when it was discovered. Reference has also
been made to the following passage in the Text Book on Medical Jurisprudence
and Toxicology by John Glaister:
and post-mortem bruises.
signs which are indicative of ante-mortem production of bruises are swelling of
the tissues, discoloration of the skin, extravasation of blood into the true
skin and subcutaneous tissues, with infiltrating. When bruise is well
developed, an examiner is justified in assuming the view that it was produced
for medico-legal purposes, a microscopical examination should be made to verify
the present of infiltrated blood. Since infiltration is possible only while the
heart is beating, this sign is conclusive that the injury was produced during
life. While molecular life remains in the tissues, considerable violence
applied to a dead body with a blunt instrument will producea slight degree of extravasation,
but never to the same extent as during life, and infiltration of the tissues
will be absent.
areas of bruising should always be incised to differentiate them from color
marks due to hypothesis, since both conditions may coexist in the same region
of the body. In bruising, extravasated blood is present, but in hypothesis the
present, but in hypothesis the served small vessels are filled with blood and extravasation
There is nothing on record to show that the post mortem examination was of the
type mentioned in the above pessage.
such Circumstances we are unable to place any reliance on the opinion of the
doctor who conducted the post mortem.
Manquli Dei Versus State of Orissa AIR 1989 Supreme Court 483 the wife killed
her husband and buried the dead body in the house. According to her confessional
statement she gave four axe blows on the head of the deceased. The dead body
was recovered according her statement but the injuries on the dead body were
not visible as it was highly de-composed. The Court held that the confession
could not be rejected merely on the ground that only one simple injury was
stated in the post mortem report. The facts in the present case are similar and
the same principle will apply.
There is no substance in the contention that the steel box discovered on the statement
of the second accused could not be sufficient to place the dead body inside and
carry it. Comments are also made that the discovery of the steel box and kukhari
belies the statement of the appellant that he had discarded the same before
returning to his place of duty. A card-board model of the steel trunk was
produced before us. In our view that size of the trunk is quite sufficient to
place the body of the deceased inside by folding it which could be possible
immediately after the death. In any event the variation between the minor
details contained in the statement of confession and the circumstances brought
out in the evidence will not in any was affect the acceptability of the
confession of the appellant that he killed his wife.
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the decisions in Nishi Kant Jha
Versus The State of Bihar 1969 (1) S.C.C. 347. Harchand Singh & Another Versus
State of Haryana (1970) 3 S.C.C. 397. Makhan Singh Versus
State of Punjab 1988 (Supp) S.C.C. 526. Chhittar Versus
State of Rajasthan 1995 Supp. (4) S.C.C.519. None of
the rulings is of any help to the appellant as the facts therein are entirely
different. The principles on which extra-judicial confession could form the
basis of a conviction are well settled. We have already referred to the
judgment in State of U.P. Versus M.K. Anthony (Supra) and Manquli
Dei Versus State of Orissa (supra). We may usefully add the decision in Piara
Singh and others Versus State of Punjab AIR 1977 S.C.2274. In that case it was
held that law does not require that the evidence of an extra judicial
confession should in all cases be corroborated and where such confession was
proved by an independent witness who was a responsible officer and who bore no
animus against the accused, there was hardly any justification to dis-believe
the result we have no hesitation to uphold the judgment of the High Court in so
far as it finds the appellant to be guilty of committing the murder of his
conviction is therefore upheld.
However, we are not satisfied that this is a rarest of rare cases in order to
warrant award of death sentence to the appellant. The ends of justice would be
met by reducing the sentence to one of imprisonment for life. The appeal is
allowed to that extent and the sentence awarded to the appellant is altered
into one of imprisonment for life.