RAMU APPA MAHAPATARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 388 : 2025 INSC 147

                        Ramu Appa Mahapatar
                                   v.
                       The State of Maharashtra
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 608 of 2013)
                              04 February 2025
               [Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether on the strength of the evidence of the four witnesses,
       the appellant-accused can be linked with the offence; whether it
       can be said that the charge against the accused of committing
       murder of the deceased stood conclusively proved beyond all
       reasonable doubt.

                                  Headnotes†
       Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Extra-judicial
       confession – When cannot be relied upon – Appellant convicted
       for the murder of his live-in partner (‘M’), on the basis of
       extra-judicial confession allegedly made by him before PW-1
       (landlord) and PW-3 (brother of the deceased) endorsed by
       PW-4 (wife of PW-3) and PW-6:
       Held: 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, but also have 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 – Conviction can be
       based solely on circumstantial evidence but, great care must be
       taken in evaluating it – If the evidence relied upon is reasonably
       capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must
       be accepted – Conduct of the appellant was quite strange – Instead
       of confessing his guilt before the police/any other authority, he

* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                              389

           Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of Maharashtra


     first went to PW-1 and told him about the death of deceased; he
     further told him that he was on his way to the residence of the
     PW-3 to inform him about the development – He then went to the
     residence of PW-3 alongwith his son in a rickshaw and told PW-3
     about the death of deceased following assault on her by him –
     This he stated to PW-3 before PW-4 and PW-6 (person sitting on
     the steps of the house of PW-3) – Extrajudicial confession of the
     appellant lacked credibility as PW-3 clearly stated that the appellant
     was in a confused state of mind when he confessed before him –
     Accused was thus, not in a fit state of mind when he made the
     extra-judicial confession before PW-3 – Further, the testimonies
     of PW-3 and PW-6 also suffered from material omission –
     Testimony of prosecution witnesses lacks credibility and also hit
     by contradictions – No corroborating circumstances were brought
     on record by the prosecution – Though, there is a strong suspicion
     against the appellant but suspicion howsoever strong cannot take
     the place of hard evidence – Extra-judicial confession made before
     the witnesses lacks credibility and hence, cannot be relied upon –
     Appellant given benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence of
     the appellant passed by the Sessions Judge as affirmed by the
     High Court, set aside and quashed – Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973 – s.161. [Paras 16, 20, 22, 23-25]

     Circumstantial evidence – Extra-judicial confession –
     Evidentiary value of – Discussed. [Paras 16-19.2]

                              Case Law Cited
     State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 445 : (2003)
     8 SCC 180; Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan [2010] 12 SCR
     583 : (2010) 10 SCC 604; Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2012]
     4 SCR 366 : (2012) 6 SCC 403; Alauddin v. State of Assam [2024]
     6 SCR 20 : (2024) SCC Online SC 760 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence
     Act, 1872

                              List of Keywords
     Circumstantial evidence; Extra-judicial confession; Murder; Live-in
     relationship; Chain of evidence; Inference of guilt; Incriminating
390                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       facts and circumstances; Incompatible with the innocence of
       the accused; Guilt of any other person; Hypothesis of the guilt
       of the accused; Confused state of mind; Fit state of mind;
       Material omission; Testimony lacks credibility; Contradictions; No
       corroborating circumstances; Strong suspicion; Benefit of doubt;
       Not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

                             Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       608 of 2013
       From the Judgment and Order dated 02.12.2010 of the High Court
       of Bombay in CRLA No. 252 of 2005

                          Appearances for Parties
       Dr. Nirmal Chopra, Adv. for the Appellant.
       Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya
       Aniruddha Pande, Advs. for the Respondent.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

       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, 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
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       391

           Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of Maharashtra


     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 Manda 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 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. 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.
392                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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 that there is no case for interference
       with the concurrent findings. Therefore, the criminal appeal is liable
       to be dismissed.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        393

             Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of Maharashtra


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.
     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
394                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


       he had assaulted Manda. As a result of 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.
       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
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                         395

             Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of Maharashtra


               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 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.
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
396                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


               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 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 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
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        397

            Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of Maharashtra


     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
     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 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


1   (2003) 8 SCC 180
398                                                          [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                       Digital Supreme Court Reports


       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 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.
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                                  399

             Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of Maharashtra


     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 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


2   (2010) 10 SCC 604
3   (2012) 6 SCC 403
400                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                      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 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-examination was
    quite categorical in deposing that he found the accused to be in a
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        401

           Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of Maharashtra


     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
     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 the 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.
402                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


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 Assam4 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 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.


4   (2024) SCC Online SC 760
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                     403

             Ramu Appa Mahapatar v. The State of Maharashtra


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 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.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey