Supreme Court of India
STATE OF A.P.versusE. SATYANARAYANA
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 648
- Decided
- 30 April 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
Extra‑judicial confessions are admissible only if proved voluntary and free from inducement, threat or suspicious circumstances, and in the present case the inconsistencies and unexplained delays rendered the confession unreliable, justifying the High Court’s acquittal.
Summary
E. Satyanarayana was charged with murdering his wife and minor son. The trial court convicted him on the basis of an alleged extra‑judicial confession made to the Village Administrative Officer and the recovery of a blood‑stained sickle, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The Andhra Pradesh High Court acquitted him, holding that the confession was not established. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the confession was voluntary and free from inducement, threat or suspicious circumstances as required by Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and noted inconsistencies such as the delay in filing the FIR, the police presence at the time of the confession, and contradictions with other witnesses. Finding the confession unreliable, the Court upheld the High Court’s acquittal and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the extra‑judicial confession made to the Village Administrative Officer was voluntary and admissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the confession was tainted by inducement, threat, promise or suspicious circumstances violating Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether the trial court erred in relying on the confession without sufficient corroboration.
- Whether the High Court was correct in acquitting the accused on the basis of doubts about the confession's reliability.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 24, s. 25, s. 26
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302
Subjects
murderextra‑judicial confessionreliability of confessionIndian Evidence ActSection 24Section 25Section 26life imprisonmentacquittalcorroboration
Judgment
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 206
A STATE OF A.P. "
V.
E. SATYANARAYANA
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2004
APRIL 30, 2009
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR.
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.)
~
Penal Code, 1860:
c S. 302 - Murder of wife and minor son - Extra judicial
confession found reliable by the trial court-Accused convicted
to life imprisonment - High Court directing acquittal - On
appeal, Held: In the facts and circumstances of the case,
;udgment of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to
warrant inteJference - Extra judicial confession - Reliability
D
of - Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 24, 25, 26.
Appellant was charged with the murder of his wife
and minor son. Trial court found him guilty of the offence
punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to
E life imprisonment. On appeal, High Court directed his
acquittal. Hence the appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There are some relevant aspects which the
F High Court has rightly taken note of. Firstly, the extra-
judicial confession is said to have been made at about
8.00 a.m. The First Information Report was given at 11.30
a.m. It has not been explained as to why there was delay
in lodging the FIR by the Village Administrative Officer.
G The evidence of PW.2 shows that police was in the house
of the accused around 8.00 a.m. If that be so, the first thing
PW.1 would have done was to report to the police about
the extra-judicial confession. That apparently has not been
done. PW.1 stated that after the extra judicial confession
H 206
STATE OF A.P. V. E. SAiYANARAYANA 207
was made, he asked two persons to keep a watch over A
the accused and then'the police came and the accused
was handed over to the police officials. This runs contrary
to the evidence of PW.14 who has clearly admitted that
the position was not so. [Para 8] [210-F-H; 211-A]
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh 8
AIR 1954 SC 322; Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1975
I SC 1320; Narayan Singh v. State of M.P AIR 1985 SC 1678;
Kishore Chand v. State of H.P AIR 1990 SC 2140; Baldev Raj
, v. State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 37; Piara Singh v. State of
Punjab Al R 1977 SC 227 4 and Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval C
Dubey 1992 (3) SCC·204 - referred to.
2. Another piece of material on which the trial Court
had placed reliance related to the recovery of the blood
stained sickle on the basis of the disclosure made by the
0
accused, The High Court has noticed that the police was
at the place of occurrence from 8.00 a.m. till 4.00 P·!ll· If
that was so, no explanation has been offered as to why
the blood stained sickle in the house of the accused was
not noticed. The conclusions of the High Court leave no
manner of doubt that the judgment of the High Court does E
not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. [Para
9] [211-B-C]
Case Law Reference
AIR 1954 SC 322 referred to Para 6 'F
AIR 1975 SC 1320 referred to Para 6 · ·
AIR 1985 SC 1678 referred to ,Para 6
AIR 1990 SC 2140 referred to Para 6 G
AIR 1991 SC 37 referred to Para 6
AIR 1977 SC 2274 referred to Para 6
1992 (3) sec 204 referred to Para 6
H
. 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal ' :>
No. 40 of 2004
From the Judgement and Order dated 09.07.2003 of the
Hon'ble High Court of AP. at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal
No. 897 of 2000.
8
I. Venkatanarayana, D. Bharathi Reddy, Altaf Fatima, V.
Prabhakar Rao, with him for the Appellant.
Nikhil Goel (AC.) for the Respondent.
c The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Division
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of
the respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of murder
D
of his wife and minor son in the intervening night of 14/
15.11.1996.
2. Learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, had found him
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian
E Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life.
3. The whole prosecution case rested on the alleged extra
judicial confession purported to have been made by the
accused before the Village Administrative Officer (PW.1) around
F 8.00 a.m. The First Information Report was given to the police
at 11.30 a.m. on 15.11.1996. It Was indicated in the FIR that the
accused had made a confession before Village Administrative
Officer to have killed the wife and son because of the quarrel
over family affairs.
G
4. The trial Court found the evidence of PW.1 so far as
alleged extra judicial confession is concerned to be reliable and ..
directed the conviction. In appeal, the primary stand taken by
the accused respondent was that the evidence of PW.1 is not
believable. It contradicts the evidence of PW.2, and the
H
STATE OF A.P. V. E. SATYANARAYANA 209
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
Investigating Officer. The High Court analaysed the evidence A
and came to the conclusion that the so-called extra judicial
confession has notbeen established.·
5. The High Court analysed the position in law relating to
extra judicial confession, namely, that the Court has to be
satisfied that the so-called extra-judicial confession is voluntary B
and not as a result of any inductment, threat or promise as
envisaged in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in
t
short 'Evidence Act') or was brought about in suspicious
circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence
Act. c
6. In Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh
(AIR 1954 SC 322), and Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR
1975 SC 1320), this Court held that the evidence in the form of
extra-judicial confession made by the accused to witnesses
D
cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration
of such evidence is required only byway of abundant caution. If .
· the court believes the witness before whom the confession is
made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily
made, then conviction can be found on such evidence alone. In
Narayan Singh v. State of M.P (AIR 1985 SC 1678) this Court E
cautioned that it is not open to the court trying the criminal case
to start with a presumption that extra judicial confession is always
.... a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the
circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the
credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession. F
The retraction of extra judicial confession which is a usual
phenomenon in criminal cases would by itself not weaken the
case of the prosecution based upon such a confession. In
Kishore Chand v. State of H.P. (AIR 1990 SC 2140) this Court
held that an unambiguous extra judicial confession possesses G
_, high probative value force as it emanates from the person who
committed the crime and is admissible in evidence provided it
is free from suspicion and suggestion of any falsity. However,
before relying on the alleged confession, the court has to be
satisfied that it is voluntary and is not the result of inductment, H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 7 S.C.R.
A threat or promise envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence •
Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstances to
circumvent Sections 25 and 26. The Court is required to look
into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such
confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral
B consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may
not be true. All relevant circumstances such as the person to
whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it,
the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinized.
To the same effect is the judgment in Ba/dev Raj v. State of
c Haryana (AIR 1991 SC 37). After referring to the judgment in
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1977 SC 2274), this Court
in Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey (1992 (3) SCC 204)
held that the extra judicial confession which is not obtained by
coercion, promise of favour or false hope and is plenary in
character and voluntary in nature can be made the basis for
0
conviction even without corroboration.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
the evidence of PW.1 should not have been discarded by the
High Court as he was a person on whom the accused could
E have reposed confidence as he was the Village Administrative
Officer. Additionally, it is submitted that minor discrepancies in
the evidence of PW.1 vis-a-vis other witnesses should not have
been magnified to direct acquittal. Learned counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the
F High Court.
8. We find there are some relevant aspects which High
Court has rightly taken note of. Firstly, the extra-judicial
confession is said to have been made at about 8.00 a.m. The
First Information Report was given at 11.30 a.m. It has not been
G explained as to why there was delay in lodging the FIR by the
Village Administrative Officer. The evidence of PW.2 shows that
police was in the house of the accused around 8.00 a.m. If that
be so, the first thing PW.1 would have done was to report to the
police about the extra-judicial confession. That apparently has
H not been done. PW.1 stated that after the extra judicial
STATE OF A.P. V. E. SATYANARAYANA 211
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
confession was made, he asked two persons to keep a watch A
over the accused and then the police came and the accused
was handed over to the police officials. This runs contrary to the
evidence of PW.14 who has clearly admitted that the position
was not so.
9. Another piece of material on which the trial Court had 8
placed reliance related to the recovery of the blood stained
·sickle on the basis of the disclosure made by the accused. The
High Court has noticed that the police was at the place of
occurrence from 8.00 a.m. till 4.00 p.m. If that was so, no
explanation has been offered as to why the blood stained sickle C
in the house of the accused was not noticed. The conclusions
of the High Court leave no manner of doubt that the judgment of
the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant
interference.
D
10. The appeal is dismissed.
11. We record our appreciation for the able assistance _
rendered by Mr. Nikhil Goel who acted as Amicus Curiae in this
case.
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
_)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "murder"Sign in to search