SADASHIV DHONDIRAM PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

           [2025] 1 S.C.R. 592 : 2025 INSC 93

                Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil
                            v.
                The State of Maharashtra
              (Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2017)
                        09 January 2025
           [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ]


                     Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether Village Police Patil is a Police Officer in terms
of s. 25 of the Evidence Act; and whether the High Court erred in
holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder.

                            Headnotes†
Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.25, 106 – Extra judicial confession –
Admissibility – Extra judicial confession to Police Patil,
if admissible – Appellant-husband charged for the murder
of his wife – Extra judicial confession allegedly made by the
appellant to the village Police Patil – Trial court acquitted
the accused for the offence punishable u/ss.302 and 201
IPC holding that extra judicial confession allegedly made by
the appellant to Village Police Patil was inadmissible as per
s.25 – High Court set aside the acquittal and held the appellant
guilty of the offence of murder – Correctness:
Held: Police Patil of the Village cannot be termed as a Police
Officer for the purpose of s.25 – Extra-judicial confession alleged
to have been made by the accused before village Police Patil is
admissible in evidence and is not hit by s.25 – However, such
extra-judicial confession should be found to be true and trustworthy
before it is relied upon by the Court to hold the accused guilty –
Extra-judicial confession should also be found to be free of any
inducement, coercion etc. and should be shown to have been
made by the accused on his own free will and volition – What
is alleged to have been conveyed cannot be said to be an
extra- judicial confession – Very omnibus and vague statement
seems to have been made – High Court erred in relying upon
the extra-judicial confession even while rightly holding that the
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                             593

         Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra


     same was admissible in evidence as Village Police Patil cannot
     be said to be a Police Officer – Panch witnesses did not support
     the prosecution case – Just because the panch witnesses have
     turned hostile does not mean that such discovery should be
     disbelieved – However, I.O. cannot be said to be proving the
     contents of the panchnama in accordance with law and the
     circumstance of discovery cannot be relied upon – Motive cannot
     be the sole basis for convicting the accused – Prosecution has to
     prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Initial burden of proof
     is always on the prosecution – However, in cases where husband
     is alleged to have killed his wife in the night hours and that too
     within the residential house, then undoubtedly the husband has
     to offer some explanation as to what had actually happened and
     if he fails to offer any plausible explanation, this can go against
     him – Prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before
     it seeks to invoke s.106 – It cannot straightaway invoke s.106
     and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his
     innocence – In view thereof, the High Court erred in holding the
     appellant guilty of the offence of murder – Impugned judgment
     set aside – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201. [Paras 27, 31,
     36-38, 42, 47-49, 50-51, 55, 56, 58]

                              Case Law Cited
     Rajeshwer S/o Hiraman Mohurle v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
     Criminal Law Journal 3816; C.K. Ravindra v. the State of Kerala
     [1999] Supp. 5 SCR 140 : AIR 2000 SC 369; Ram Singh v. the
     State of Maharashtra & Anr (1999) Criminal Law Journal 3763;
     Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) Supplementary 4 SCC
     259 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure,
     1973; Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967.

                             List of Keywords
     Extra judicial confession; Admissibility of extra judicial confession
     to Police Patil; Police Patil, if termed as a Police Officer; Panch
     witnesses; Motive.
594                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                             Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1718 of 2017
       From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2015 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay in CRLA No. 70 of 1994

                          Appearances for Parties
       Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammed, Rishabh Agarwal,
       Advs. for the Appellant.
       Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv., Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya
       Aniruddha Pande, Advs. for the Respondent.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

1.     This appeal arises from the Judgment and Order passed by the
       High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 3-7-2015 in Criminal
       Appeal No.70/94 by which the High Court allowed the acquittal
       appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra and thereby set aside
       the Judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur dated
       13-7-1993 in Sessions Case No.48/91 acquitting the appellant -
       herein (original accused) for the offence punishable under
       Sections 302 and 201 respectively of the Indian Penal Code (for
       short, the “IPC”).
2.     The case of the prosecution may be summarized as under:-
       The deceased by name Lata was married to the appellant herein.
       A son was born in the wedlock. However, it appears that marital life
       was not happy. The appellant – herein was entertaining a doubt in
       his mind as regards the chastity of his wife. One day all of a sudden,
       the deceased went missing.
3.     In such circumstances, the maternal uncle of the deceased by name –
       Yashwant Ganpati Patil (PW 5) went to the house of Village Police
       Patial by name Mr. Vasant Dattu Bhosale & informed him that his
       niece had gone missing.
4.     It appears that on 20-10-1990 at about 9.30 p.m. PW 5 brought to
       the notice to PW 2 that his niece Lata was missing.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                        595

         Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra


5.   The PW – 2, being the Village Police Patil, visited the house of the
     appellant – herein and found that the dead-body of the deceased
     lying in one corner of the house. The materials on record further
     indicate that the brother of the appellant – herein by name Madhukar
     and his wife Laxmi (PW 4) along with their daughter Mangal (PW 3)
     were also residing in the same house but separately in one part.
6.   Upon recovery of the dead-body of the deceased, the inquest
     panchnama was drawn. The body of the deceased was sent for
     postmortem examination. The postmortem examination report noted
     that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. It is the
     case of the prosecution that the appellant – herein strangulated his
     wife to death with the help of an iron rod.
7.   This iron rod is also stated to have been discovered from the place
     of the incident itself by way of a discovery panchnama drawn by the
     Investigating Officer in the presence of the panch witnesses.
8.   The appellant was arrested in connection with the First Information
     Report that came to be lodged by the PW-2 himself at the concerned
     Police Station for the offence of murder.
9.   Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed
     charge-sheet for the offence enumerated above.
10. The case being exclusively triable by a Sessions Judge came to be
    committed to the Court of Sessions.		
11. The Trial Court framed charge vide order dated 20.02.1993 which
    reads thus:
                                “CHARGE
           I, V. B. Deshmukh, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur
           hereby charge you accused.
           Shri. Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil, Age-33 years, Resident
           of Takali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur as follows:-
           That you accused on or about 25.10.1990 at about 1.00
           a.m. at Mouje Sainik Takali, Tal. Shirol, Dist. Kolhapur
           did commit murder of your wife Sou. Lata Sadashiv Patil,
           Age-25 years by pressing her neck and thereby committed
           an offence punishable section 302 of the Indian Penal
           Code.
596                                                      [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                    Digital Supreme Court Reports


          Secondly that you on aforesaid date, time and place
          knowingly that certain offence, to wit that you committed
          murder of your wife by pressing her neck and offence
          punishable with death or imprisonment for life has been
          committed, did cause of certain evidence of the said
          offence to disappear to wit. that you put the dead body of
          your wife in a gunny bag and thrown in the (iso) where the
          food-grains are preserved with an intention to screening
          yourself from legal punishment and thereby committed an
          offence punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal
          code, and within my cognizance.
          And, hereby I direct you that you be tried by me on
          aforesaid charges.
          Today this 20th day of February, 1993 at Kolhapur.
          (V.B.Deshmukh),
          4th Additional Sessions Judge,
          Kolhapur..”
12. In the course of the trial, the prosecution examined the following
    witnesses:-		
          1.   Mr. Yeshvant Govind Chavan Exhibit 13
          2.   Mr. Vasant Dattu Bhosale (Patil) Exhibit 16
          3.   Ms. Mangal Exhibit 19
          4.   Ms. Laxmi wife of Madhukar Patil Exhibit 20
          5.   Mr. Yashvant Ganapati Patil Exhibit 21
          6.   Mr. Yamnappa Bhimrao Murali Exhibit 22
          7.   Mr. Amrut Rama Mane Exhibit 24
          8.   Dr. Shashikant Lakshman Pawar Exhibit 32
13. The prosecution also relied upon the following pieces of documentary
    evidence:-
          1.   First Information Report (Exhibit 17)
          2.   Inquest Panchnama (Exhibit 8)
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                          597

         Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra


           3.   Spot Panchnama (Exhibit 10)
           4.   Arrest Panchnama (Exhibit 11)
           5.   Memorandum of the Statement of accused
                (Exhibit 14)
           6.   Seizure punchnama of iron-rod, Article No.1
                (Exhibit 15)
           7.   Seizure punchnama of the clothes of the deceased
                (Exhibit 12)
           8.   The Memorandum of Post-mortem examination
                (Exhibit 33)
           9.   Advance Medical Certificate (Exhibit 9)
           10. Seven photographs (Exhibit 37 to 43)
14. Upon closure of the recording of the evidence, the further statement
    of the appellant – herein was recorded under Section 313 of the
    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
15. In the further statement, the appellant stated as under:-
           Q.75 Do you want to say anything more about your
           defence?
           Answer : I am giving written statement.
                    WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED
                        UNDER SECTION 313 of Cr. P.C.
           Few months prior to death of my wife, I became disciple
           of Shri Rane of Shirol. He told me not to sleep at home
           for 6 months. Therefore I use to stay at night generally at
           Shirol. If I am at Takali, then I use to sleep at Kalleshwar
           temple. 2-3 days prior to missing of my wife from the
           home, I was at Shirol. When I returned on Thursday or
           Friday, I came to know about missing of my wife from the
           home. I enquired with, her maternal uncle, but she did not
           go there. I am implicated in the present case only on the
           basis of doubt.
16. The Trial Court upon appreciation of the oral as well as the
    documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the
598                                                          [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
       The Trial Court accordingly acquitted the appellant – herein.
17. It may not be out of place to state that at this stage that the Trial
    Court looked into only one piece of circumstance, i.e., the extra
    judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant –
    herein before the (PW 2), i.e., the village Police Patil in the presence
    of his sister-in-law (PW 4) – Laxmi.
18. It is also important to note that Madhukar (brother of the accused)
    passed away during the course of trial and he could not have been
    examined as one of the prosecution witnesses.
19. The Trial Court took the view that the extra-judicial confession alleged
    to have been by the appellant – herein before (PW 2) could not be
    said to be admissible in evidence being hit by Section 25 of the
    Indian Evidence Act.
20. The Trial Court also disbelieved the discovery of the iron rod under
    Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
21. The State, being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of acquittal
    passed by the Trial Court, went in appeal before the High Court.
22. The High Court reversed the acquittal and held the appellant – herein
    guilty of the offence of murder and accordingly sentenced him to
    undergo life imprisonment.
23. In such circumstances, referred to above, the appellant is here before
    this Court with the present appeal.
24. We have heard Mr. Sachin Patil, the learned counsel appearing for
    the appellant and Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, the learned Senior counsel
    appearing for the respondent – State.
25. We take notice of the fact that the entire case hinges on circumstantial
    evidence. The High Court relied upon the four pieces of incriminating
    evidence for the purpose of holding the accused guilty of the offence
    of murder of his wife:-
       (i)    extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the
              appellant before (PW 2) on 29-10-1990
       (ii)   discovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., the iron rod;
       (iii) motive to commit crime;
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                                599

         Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra


     (iv) the incident occurred inside the house and, therefore, the
          appellant could be said to be within the special knowledge as
          to what had happened on the fateful day of the incident.
26. The High Court while reversing the acquittal invoked Section 106
    of the Evidence Act and shifted the burden on the appellant –
    herein to establish or rather explain what exactly had happened
    with his wife.
27. It appears that when the Trial Court acquitted the appellant – herein,
    the position of law as regards the admissibility of an extra-judicial
    confession said to have been made before the Village Police Patil
    was something different. A Division Bench of the High Court in
    “Ram Singh vs. the State of Maharashtra & Anr” (1999) Criminal
    Law Journal 3763 had held that a village Police Patil is a Police
    officer and, therefore, any confession made to him is inadmissible
    in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
28. In the said Judgment, the Division Bench also looked into & discussed
    Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967, under which
    a Police Patil is appointed.
29. We quote the relevant observations of the said Judgment as under:-
           13. Section 14 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967,
           provides inter alia:
           “(1) The Police Patil shall apprehend any person within
           the limits of his village who he may have reason to believe
           has committed any serious offence, and shall forward
           such person, together with all articles likely to be useful
           as evidence, to the Station Officer.
           (2) Every person so apprehended shall within 24 hours
           be produced before the nearest Magistrate, excluding the
           time necessary for the journey from the place where he is
           apprehended to the Court of the Magistrate.”
           14. Sub-section (1) of S. 13 of the Maharashtra Village
           Police Act, 1967, provides:
           “The Police Patil shall forthwith proceed to the place of incident
           and call upon two or more intelligent persons belonging
           to the village or neighbourhood, who shall investigate the
           causes of death and all the circumstances of the case, and
600                                                       [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                  Digital Supreme Court Reports


       make a written report of the same, which the Police Patil
       shall cause to be forthwith delivered to the Station Officer.”
       15. Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967,
       provides inter alia:
       “(1) The Police Patil, in making any investigation coming
       within the scope of his duty, shall have authority to call
       and examine witnesses, and record their statement, and
       to search for concealed articles, taking care that no search
       be made in a dwelling-house between sunset and sunrise
       without urgent occasion.
       (2) The Police Patil shall also have authority, in carrying out
       any search or any pursuit of supposed criminal, to enter
       and act within the limits of other villages, being bound
       however to have immediate information to the Police
       Patil thereof, who shall afford him all the assistance in his
       power, and be immediately responsible for continuing the
       search and pursuit.”
       16. On plain reading of these provisions under the
       Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967, it will be clear that
       the Police Patil has power to apprehend a person, if he
       suspects that a person has committed serious offence. He
       has to send report to the Police Station and the person
       is required to be produced within 24 hours from the time
       and Police Patil apprehend such person. Not only that a
       preliminary investigation with respect to such crime also
       can be made by the Police Patil and he can even chase the
       accused and apprehend the accused. So, it is obvious that
       the observations of the learned Additional Sessions Judge
       quoted above are made without reading the appropriate
       provisions. Before making any such observations in the
       judgment, the Judge, at least, of the cadre of Additional
       Sessions Judge, is expected to go through the relevant
       provisions of law. Sweeping observations should not be
       made just to boost the reasoning which is being given in
       the judgment.
       17. In the light of the provisions of the Maharashtra Village
       Police Act, 1967, it has to be seen whether any confession
       made before the Police Patil is hit by Section 25 of the
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            601

         Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra


           Evidence Act. The powers of the Police Patil which are
           referred to above clearly indicate that when any offence
           takes place, he can act as a Police Officer. He is not a
           mere spectator or informant. So, for all practical purposes,
           he is a Police Officer and, therefore, any confession made
           before the Police Patil would become inadmissible in
           evidence as being made before a Police Officer.
           18. In this respect, we would like to refer two rulings of our
           High Court. The first is, in the case of Queen Empress v.
           Bhima ((1894) ILR 17 Bom 485), and the other is in the case
           of Vistari Narayan Shebe v. The State of Maharashtra 1978
           Cri LJ 891. It is observed in the case of Vistari Narayan
           Shebe by the Division Bench, as follows (at page 895):
           “In our opinion, it is fairly well established that the police
           patil is a police officer within the meaning of Sec. 25 of
           the Evidence Act. As early as in 1893 this Court held in
           Queen Empress v. Bhima ((1894) ILR 17 Bom 485), that
           a police patil is a police officer within the meaning of Ss.
           25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. A confession made
           to a police patil is inadmissible in evidence. It must be
           remembered that the words “a police officer” found in S. 25
           of the Indian Evidence Act should not be read in any strict
           technical sense but according to its more comprehensive
           and more popular meaning. Nor is the term confined to
           a person actually in charge of investigating the offence
           under the Cr. P.С.”
           19. Thus, it will be very clear that any confessional
           statement made by the accused before the Police Patil is not
           admissible in evidence. If the learned Additional Sessions
           Judge had considered this aspect in that perspective, he
           would not have relied upon the evidence of the Police
           Patil to hold that the extra judicial confession made by
           the accused before the Police Patil could be sufficient to
           convict the accused. The deposition of the Police Patil as
           well as the F.I.R. which include this confessional statement
           are inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, this evidence
           brought on record by the prosecution has to be excluded
           altogether”.
602                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


30. In the year 2009, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, answered
    a reference titled “Rajeshwer S/o Hiraman Mohurle vs. State of
    Maharashtra” reported in (2009) Criminal Law Journal 3816. The
    Full Bench was called upon to answer whether a Village Police Patil
    is a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence
    Act or not.
31. The Full Bench of the High Court overruled the above referred Division
    Bench Judgment and took the view that a Village Police Patil is not
    a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence
    Act and any confession made before him would be admissible in
    evidence as an extra-judicial confession. We may quote the relevant
    paragraphs of the said Full-Bench Judgment as under:-
          “18. Upon objective analysis of the principles aforestated,
          it can be stated with some certainty that merely because a
          person is appointed to a post which vests him with limited
          powers of Investigation and inquiry or any power ancillary
          thereto or empowers him to prevent commission of crime
          in an area would not per se make him a Police Officer in
          law so as to attract the bar contained in section 25 of the
          Evidence Act. We have already noticed in some detail
          that the powers vested in Police Patil under the Village
          Police Act are expected to be exercised for performance
          of duties and functions stated under section 6 of that Act.
          The duties and functions of the Police Patil are of a very
          restricted nature and do not vest in him all the powers
          including the power to file a charge-sheet under section 173
          of the Criminal Procedure Code which a Police Officer
          under the Code possess. On the contrary, he is expected
          to assist the Police Officers when called upon by them
          in performance of their duties. He has to act under the
          orders of the District Magistrate and even is expected to
          collect and communicate to the Station Officer intelligence
          affecting the public peace. The basic and primary distinction
          between the powers of the Police Officer under the Code
          and the power and duties of the Police Patil under the
          Village Police Act, is that while the investigating officer or
          Police Officer in charge of a Police Station is duty bound
          in, law to conduct inquiry or, investigation in a just, proper
          and fair manner independently being uninfluenced by
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           603

         Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra


           any other facts. There the restricted duties and powers
           relating to investigation and even otherwise vested in the
           Police Patil are to be exercised under the supervision of
           higher authorities as indicated in the provisions of the
           Village Police Act. Police Patil is required to perform his
           functions and discharge his duties subject to the orders
           of the Magistrate and is also required to assist and help
           the Police Officers in discharge of their duties. In these
           circumstances, it will be a far fetched submission that
           the Police Patil has to be treated as a Police Officer in
           law for all intent and purposes. The consistent view of
           the Supreme Court as is evident from the above referred
           judgments is that the officer, other than a police officer,
           invested with powers of an officer -In-charge of a Police
           Station is not entitled, to exercise all the powers under
           Chapter XII of the Code Including the power to submit a
           report or charge-sheet/challan under section 173 of the
           Code. This feature has been the hallmark and is held to
           be determinative factor by the Supreme Court. Once this
           aspect is missing from the ambit of the powers vested in
           the officer, he cannot be stated to be a Police Officer for
           the purposes of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
           The Police Patil under the Village Police Act is also not a
           Police Officer on the deeming fiction of law as there is no
           provision in the Statute which specifically or even otherwise
           requires the Police Patil to be treated as a Police Officer
           for all intent and purpose.
           19. It will be useful to refer to the reasoning recorded
           by the Supreme Court in the case of Badku Joti Savant
           (supra) even at the cost of repetition. In paragraph 9 while
           discussing section 21 of the Central Excise Act which
           states that a Central Excise Officer under the Act has all
           the powers of an officer in-charge of a Police Station under
           Chapter XIV of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court
           rejected the contention that therefore he should be deemed
           to be a Police Officer within the meaning of section 25 of
           the Evidence Act. Reference was made to the provisions
           of section 78(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1955
           and section 77 of that Act which stated that Excise Officer
           empowered under the provisions shall be deemed to be
604                                                     [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       the officer in-charge of a Police Station and shall have the
       power of such officer to investigate a cognizable case. But
       even there the Supreme Court held that this power does
       not include the power to submit a charge-sheet under
       section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code under the
       Excise Act unlike the Bihar and Orissa Act and thus held
       that Central Excise Officer is not an officer deemed to be
       in-charge of a Police Station. In other words, the Supreme
       Court declined to accept the applicability of the deemed
       fiction of law to the extent of terming the Central Excise
       Officer as a Police Officer for the purpose of section 25
       of the Evidence Act.
       20. The distinction between the powers of investigation
       given to a Police Officer under the Code and that of a
       Police Patil under the Village Police Act is quite obvious
       from the provisions of the two Statutes. Police Patil has
       been vested with very limited powers that too under the
       control and for the benefit of the Executive Magistrate/
       Police Officer and his duties are primarily to ensure that
       offences and public nuisance are not committed in the
       village and to bring the offenders to justice. The expression
       “bringing the offenders to justice” appearing in section 6 of
       the Village Police Act along with its other provisions has to
       be given its normal and plain meaning. There is no need,
       keeping in view the scheme of the Act or the legislative
       intent, to expand the meaning of this expression and
       enlarge the scope of provisions of this section on certain
       presumption of law. The powers of the Police Patil as stated
       under section 13 to 15 of the Village Police Act, are to
       be read and construed ejusdem generis to the provisions
       of section 6. The bare reading of these provisions show
       that Police Patil is not vested with the powers of preparing
       and filing a charge-sheet before the Court of competent
       jurisdiction. The powers of Police Patil to investigate and
       control over the apprehended persons are very limited in
       contradistinction to powers of a Police Officer under the
       Code. In terms of section 156 of the Code, a Police Officer
       is vested with the power to investigate any cognizable case
       under the provisions of Chapter XIII even without orders
       of the Magistrate. On the other hand, when a Police Patil
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                            605

         Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra


           apprehends a person in exercise of his powers vested
           under section 14(i) of the Village Police Act, he has to
           forward such person to the Station Officer, who in turn shall
           produce such person before the Magistrate within twenty
           four hours. Thus Legislative intent behind section 6 appears
           to be that Police Patil is a person responsible primarily
           for village surveillance, prevention of crime and providing
           his assistance and help to the police in discharge of his
           duties. Even above all this, his duties and functions have
           been made subject to orders of the District Magistrate. The
           Police Patil does not enjoy absolute freedom in relation
           to investigation, apprehending the suspect and even in
           exercise of other powers vested in him under law. The
           powers to be exercised and duties and functions to be
           performed by him are under the supervisory control of the
           stated authorities. The duties, functions and powers vested
           in an authority by a Statute are relatable to the source
           which prescribes such functions and powers. The ambit,
           scope and effect of exercise of such power can be tested
           by two different concepts i.e. quo modo and actio quaelibet
           it suia via. In what manner the powers are to be exercised
           as per the prescribed procedure, the performance or action
           must follow its prescribed procedure. On applying the
           above stated principles and testing them with reference to
           the maxims stated (supra), it is not possible for the Court
           to hold that either the manner of functions and powers of
           Police Patil or method in which they are to be performed
           are equitable to the authority, powers and functions of a
           Police Officer, in law. Therefore, we are unable to contribute
           to the view that Police Patil is a Police Officer in law for
           all intent and purpose and confession before him would
           attract the bar contemplated under section 25 of the Indian
           Evidence Act, 1872.
           21. In view of our above discussion, now we proceed to
           record the answer to the question of law framed by the
           Division Bench. Our answer is as follows:-
           “We are of the considered view that the Police Patil
           appointed under the Maharashtra Village Police Act, 1967
           is not a ‘Police Officer’ for the purposes of section 25 of
           the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”.
606                                                         [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


32. It appears that the High Court while reversing the acquittal relied upon
    the above-referred Full Bench Decision for the purpose of taking the
    view that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant – herein
    before PW 2 could be said to be admissible in evidence.
33. One interesting question that arises for our consideration at this
    stage is that at the relevant point of time i.e., in 1993 when the Trial
    Court acquitted the appellant – herein the position of law was that an
    extra-judicial confession said to have been made by an accused
    before a village Police Patil could be said to be inadmissible in
    evidence being hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
34. In the year 2009, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court while
    answering a reference held that a Village Police Patil is not a Police
    Officer. Therefore, if the accused herein had stood acquitted having
    regard to the position of law prevailing at the relevant point of time
    then relying on a subsequent decision taking a contrary view whether
    the accused could have been held guilty?
35. It could be argued that the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High
    Court came to be delivered in the year 2009 whereas the appellant
    was acquitted by the Trial Court sometime in the year 1993. The
    position of law till 2009 was that a Village Police is a Police Officer
    and therefore, any confession made to him would be inadmissible in
    evidence in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, more particularly
    in view of the Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court
    rendered in Ram Singh (supra). We do not propose to consider the
    question whether the High Court could have relied upon the Full Bench
    decision after the appellant came to be acquitted by the Trial Court
    in 1993 thereby giving retrospective effect as regards its applicability.
36. We proceed on the footing that PW 2 – Vasant Dattu Bhosale,
    Police Patil of the Village cannot be termed as a Police Officer for
    the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. We also proceed on
    the footing that the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been
    made by the accused before PW 2 is admissible in evidence and
    is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. However, such extra-
    judicial confession should be found to be true & trustworthy before
    it is relied upon by the Court to hold the accused guilty.
37. Besides, the above such extra-judicial confession should also be
    found to be free of any inducement, coercion etc. and it should be
    shown to have been made by the accused on his own free will and
    volition.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                          607

         Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra


38. We requested the learned counsel appearing for the State to show
    us from the oral evidence on record, more particularly, the deposition
    of PW 2 as well as the deposition of PW 5, the exact words alleged
    to have been uttered by the appellant – herein in the form of an
    extra-judicial confession.
39. We on our own also looked into and are convinced that what is
    alleged to have been conveyed cannot be said to be an extra-judicial
    confession. A very omnibus & vague statement seems to have been
    made as deposed by both the witnesses in their oral evidence.
40. This Court in “C.K. Ravindra vs. the State of Kerala” AIR 2000 SC
    369 had held that before placing reliance upon the extra-judicial
    confession, the Court must be convinced as regards the exact words
    or even the words as nearly as possible. This Court took the view
    that it would be difficult to rely upon the extra-judicial confession if
    the exact words or even the words as nearly as possible have not
    been reproduced, the said statement cannot be said to be voluntary.
    In such circumstances, the same may have to be excluded from the
    purview of consideration.
41. This Court in “Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab” (1995)
    Supplementary 4 SCC 259 had held that an extra-judicial confession
    by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires
    appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where extra-
    judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its
    credibility becomes doubtful and would lose its importance.
42. In such circumstances, referred to above, we are of the view that the
    High Court fell in error in relying upon the extra-judicial confession
    even while rightly holding that the same was admissible in evidence
    as Village Police Patil cannot be said to be a Police Officer.
43. We now come to the second piece of the circumstance relied upon.
44. It is the case of the prosecution that after the arrest of the appellant –
    herein, he is said to have on his own free will and volition made a
    statement before the Investigating Officer and he was ready and
    willing to point out the place where he had concealed the weapon,
    i.e., the iron rod.
45. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer along with two independent
    witnesses in the form of panchas went to the place as led by the
    appellant – herein.
608                                                        [2025] 1 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


46. The place was the house itself where the incident had occurred.
    According to the Investigating Officer, the appellant pointed out the
    iron rod which was lying in one corner of the house. The same was
    seized in the presence of the panch witnsses and was sent to the
    Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis.
47. In this regard, we may only say that panch witnesses have not
    supported the case of the prosecution. They failed to prove the
    contents of the discovery panchnama.
48. If the panch witnesses are declared hostile then the prosecution
    is obliged to prove the contents of the said discovery panchnama
    through the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The question is
    how is the I.O. expected to prove the contents of the panchnama.
49. The position of law in this regard is very clear. Just because the panch
    witnesses have turned hostile does not mean that such discovery
    should be disbelieved. From the plain reading of the oral evidence
    of the Investigating Officer if the discovery is believable and inspires
    confidence, the same can definitely be looked into as one of the
    incriminating pieces of evidence against the accused.
50. However, unfortunately in the case on hand, all that the I.O. did
    was to depose that he had drawn the panchnama and in the end
    identified his signature on the same and that of the panch witnesses.
    This cannot be said to be proving the contents of the panchnama
    in accordance with law. In such circumstances, the circumstance of
    discovery also cannot be relied upon.
51. We are now left with motive. Motive is a double-edged weapon.
    Motive cannot be the sole basis for convicting the accused and that
    too for a serious offence like murder. Motive may be considered along
    with other pieces of reliable evidence in the form of incriminating
    circumstances.
52. We now come to the last part of the matter.
53. The learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that the
    dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house itself,
    i.e., the place where the family was residing. He would submit that
    in normal circumstances, the husband could be said to be the best
    person to explain as to what had happened to his wife on the date
    of the incident.
[2025] 1 S.C.R.                                                           609

            Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra


54. According to the learned counsel, when an offence is committed
    within the four walls of the house and that too in secrecy, it is difficult
    for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt
    and, therefore, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it is for the
    accused to explain what had actually happened and in the absence
    of any such explanation, it could be said that the accused committed
    the crime as alleged.
55. The law in the aforesaid regard is well-settled. Prosecution has to
    prove its case beyond reasonable doubt & that too on its own legs.
    The initial burden of proof is always on the prosecution. However, in
    cases where husband is alleged to have killed his wife in the night
    hours & that too within the residential house, then undoubtedly the
    husband has to offer some explanation as to what had actually
    happened and if he fails to offer any plausible explanation, this
    can go against him. However, Section 106 of the Evidence Act is
    subject to one well-settled principle of law. The prosecution has to
    first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106
    of the Evidence Act. If the prosecution has not been able to lay the
    foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the
    Evidence Act, it cannot starightaway invoke the said Section and
    throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence.
56. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the High
    Court committed error in holding the appellant guilty of the offence
    of murder.
57. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.
58. The impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court is
    hereby set aside.
59. We are informed that the appellant has been enlarged on bail by
    this Court. His bail bonds stand discharged.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain