Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s finding that the uncorroborated extra‑judicial confession, tainted by procedural irregularities, could not support a conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Summary

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed the acquittal of Manmatharaj, who had been convicted by the trial court for murder and for causing the disappearance of evidence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, based primarily on an extra‑judicial confession recorded by the Village Administrative Officer (PW‑1). The Madras High Court set aside the conviction, holding that the confession (Ext. P‑1) lacked corroboration and was unreliable due to inconsistencies, procedural lapses, and failure of the officer to send the records to the court. The Supreme Court examined whether such a confession could be the sole basis for conviction and whether the High Court’s reasoning was sound. It found that the confession was indeed uncorroborated, the officer’s conduct violated statutory duties, and therefore the High Court’s decision to acquit was correct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the acquittal in place.

Issues considered

Whether an extra‑judicial confession given to a Village Administrative Officer is admissible and reliable for conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Whether lack of corroboration renders such a confession insufficient to sustain a conviction.
Whether procedural irregularities in recording, endorsing, and forwarding the confession affect its evidentiary value.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302

Subjects

extra‑judicial confessionconfession reliabilitycorroborationmurderIPC 302IPC 201evidenceVillage Administrative Officeracquittalappeal

Judgment

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 735

STATE OF TAMIL NADU A
"" v.
MANMATHARAJ
· (Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2002)
NOVEMBER 28, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
• SHARMA, JJ.]
)-

PENAL CODE, 1860:
c
ss. 302 and 201 - Accused convicted of his wife's murder
- Trial court relying on the extra-judicial confession stated to
have been made to village Administrative Officer - Acquittal
by High Court as it did not find reliable the confession and
the evidence led to corroborate it - HELD: High Court has : D
rightly held the prosecution version unacceptable - There is
no infirmity in the reasoning of High Court to warrant
interference - Evidence - Extra-judicial confession.
~
The respondent was prosecuted ulss 302 and 201
IPC for casing death of his wife. The prosecution case E
, emanated from the confession (Ext. P-1) stated to have
been made by the ·respondent before the Village
Administrative Officer (PW-1) in the presence of PW-7.

...
;

( ,.ii(
The trial court on the basis of the extra-judicial confession
and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-7, convicted the
accused, /but the High Court acquitted him~
F

In th·e instant appeal filed by the State, it was
contended for the appellant that the High Court erred in
doubting authenticity of Ext. P-1 and acquitting the G
accused.
>
·~
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

735 H
...
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

;
A HELD: 1.1. The High Court, having cohcluded that the
extra-judicial confession (Ext. P-1) lacks corroboration,
has referred to the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 7 to find
out whether their evidence would pass the test of
reliability. The High Court was of the view that it could rely
B upon their evidence if it was held that Ext.P~1 had come
to be 'recorded ·withouf any s~spiciou·s circumsfance
surrounding it. In this 'context, a perusal of Ext .P-15
(printed First Information Report) as well as Ext. P-1 itself
gives room to doubt the very truth of these two
c documents. At the foot of Ext. P-1, PW-1 made an
endorsement. The endorserrlent as it stood originally
reads that PW1 himself had taken the accused and Ext.
P-1 to the Police Station. However, there is a correction
in the. en.dor~ement made at the foot of Ext.P.;1 and it is
o made to appear that the accused was sent to the Police
Station along with Ext. P-1 and other material records
only with PW-7, the village menial. The contradictory ...
statements of PW-7, J>W-10 and PW-14 also cast doubt
on. the time and manner of registration of Ext. P-1 and
E preparation of other mate,rial records in 1the Police
Station. [Pa_ra 5 and 6] [739-H; 740-A-C]

· ~ .2. When an extra judicial confession i~ given to the
Village Administrative ·officer, he goes to the scene of
occurre_n.ce-;..-observes ttie dead body as well as the
F scene; satisfies himself about the truth of the st~tement ·'.
given by the person concerned and then,. prepares the '
,.material records,in duplicate and sends the same to the
court and a copy thereof to the Police Station. But in the
instant case, the Village Administrative 9fficerciid not do
G anything of that sort thol¥Jh he had 10 years of
experience and categorically admitted that he knew the
procedure. The failure on the part.of PW1 to send the
material records to the Court, especially, when he was
aware of his duty in that regard is yet another
H
1'
--.
:1,
STATE OF TAMIL NADUI v. MANMATHARAJ 737

-.., circumstance which is sufficient to doubt the entire case A
of the prosecution put through PWs 1 and 7. [Para 7]
[741-F-H; 742-A-B]

1.3. The High Court has rightly held that the
prosecution yersion is unacceptable. There is no infirmity B
in the reasoning of the High Court to warrant interference.
1-./
[Para 8 and 9] [7 42-C]
}-
.CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 815 of 2002.
C'
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.4.2001 of the
#. High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 718
of 1993.

V. Shunmugasun Daram, S. Thananjayan and R. D
Nedumaran for the Appellant.

1
., V.J. Francis, A. Radhakrishnan and Anupam Mishra for the
Respondents .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E

DR. ARIJFr PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is,
to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
allowing the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred
' to as the 'accused') who was convicted for the offence F
~ punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian
...;(
Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

The accused is. a resident of Chockalingapuram. The G
>·
deceased Mariammal was his wife. Their marriage had taken
;.. place ten years prior to the occurrence. (The occurrence was
on 29.5.1990) The deceased and the accused have a son
a~ed about eight years. The deceased was employed in a
private establishment near her village. PW2 is her co-worker. H
"-
t '
738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.O.Ft ~
t-
. 1--
~ ~ '

A The accused came fo..know that his wife was having an illicit r
,
1-
affair with PW 2. The·refore, he:warned his wife: However; 'the . I

deceased continued her affair with PW2. Two weeks·priorfo
the occurre~e~. on coming to know that th~ deceased and PW2 ....
are happily spentling their time in the plantain ·garden of
B Neerkathaling~m •. n'orth ofthe village, the(lccused wenfthere
to catch them red-handed. Seeing his movements there, PW2
and the deceased parted company and moved away. On ... ~
25.5.1990, the deceased and PW2 were found sharing their 4
bed in the very same plantain garden by PW3 and PW4. Both
c PWs 3 & 4 reprimanded them. ·Coming to know about this
incident, the accused questioned his wife on 29.5.1990 and his
I-
wife flatly refused such an incident There was an exchange of
J-
words between the two during which the accused abused the
~
deceased stating that he had been put to shai:ne on account
D of his wife's conduct and therefore, he must .k!ll her. He wanted r-
'
his wife to accompany him so that he could verify with PWs 3 r-
!"-
& 4 about the in.cident on 25.5.1990 in her presence. With that
,. .._
object in his mind, the accused took his wife to the private I-
establishment where she was working. Enroute, they found r- I
- E PW5 seated under a banvan tree. The deceased invited him l
I
I>'-
to jo[n them: tiowever, the.accused told PW5 not to accompany
them. The deceased and the accused .were proceed.ing '
~
towards north and they were passing a channel called "Vadi ._
Kalvai" around 12 n,oon on that day. The deceased refused to L
F proceed further towards the private establishment where she t-.

was working. She also told the accused at that time that she ......L
.....
would move only like that with PW2 and if the accused Is not .>...
willing for such a course, then she would rather go with PW2. t
Deciding that she should not be allowed to live any more, the
G accused fisted her and pushed her inside the channel. Pressing
her inside the water, he picked up a white stone lying nearby
and repeatedly attacked ori her head with that stone resulting ...
in injuries on the back side of her head, left ear and over the
right cheek. Mariammalwas bleeding through the injury on her '"'
H head which stained the. earth as well as her saree. When
.r
STATE OF TAMIL NADUI v. MANMATHARAJ 739
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

--r Mariammal was being pushed by the accused, she bit his right A
hand index finger as well as his right hand resulting in injuries
to the accused. Thinking that Mariammal would die, the
accused leaving Mariammal at the spot itself, rushed .to the
establishment where his younger brother Kasirajan was working
and confessed to him that he had attacked his wife with a stone. B
The accused and Kasirajan immediately went to the scene of
occurrence where they found Mariammal fighting for her life.
)'. Immediately, the accused and his younger brother put her in a
cart and took her to the house where she was laid on the
western side of the house. When Mariammal was being taken c
down from the cart, the shirt of the accused and his younger
brother bec~me blood-stained. Sometime later, Mariammal
died. The accused thought of burning his wife's body secretly.
However, his conscience did not permit him to do so which
impelled him to disclose the truth to someone. Accordingly, he 0
reached the office of PW 1, the Village Administrative Officer
around 8 p.m. On 29.5.1990 where PW7 and the Panchayat
President were there. In their presence the accused gave a
~ confessional statement.

3. The Trial Court placing reliance on the extr.a judicial E
confession given to the Village Administrative Office (PW1) in
the presence of PW7 directed conviction. In appeal, the High
Court set aside the conviction. The High Court after referring
to the evidence of PWs 1 and 7 held that Ex.P1 lacks
authenticity. F

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
High Court should riot have directed acquittal doubting the
authenticity of Ex.P1. Learned counsel for the respondent
supported the judgment. G

5. In the instant case, having concluded that Ex. P 1 lacks
~ corroboration, High Court has referred to the oral evidence of
PWs 1 and 7 to find out whether their evidence would pass the
H
740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 $.C.R.

A test of reliability. High Court was of the view that it could rely -..r-
upon their evidence if it was: held· that Ex. P 1 had conie to' be
recorded without any suspicious circumstance surrounding it r
In this context, .a perusal of Ex.tP15 as well as E~c P1 itself give
room to doubt.the very truth of Exs. P1 and P15. At the foot of I
B Ex. P1, PW1 had made an endorsement. The endorsement as ~
it stood originally reads that PW1 himself had taken the ~
l> ,I
accused and Ex. P1 to the Police Station. However, there is a
correction in the endorsement made at the foot of Ex.P1 and it ~ {
\
is made to appear that the accused was sent to the Police '...__
c Station along with Ex. P1 and othermaterial records onlywith .
PW7, village ·menial. PW7 would 'state that he went to. the r-
Police Station where he presented the accused as well as '

Exs.PI and P3 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, examined as
PW1 O in this case. PW 1O had also stated so. But, in the same
breadth, PW1 stated that he reached the Police Station at 12 t
D ~
in the night i.e., in the midnight of 29.5.1990; waited there for ~

one hour; the Inspector of Police came and gave Ex. P1 only .,..
to him. He knows the difference between a Sub-Inspector and
an Inspector. If the evidence of PW7 is accepted, itwill show
1- ..'
I•
I
beyond
E . doubt
- that .
he had reached the Police Station only, in I
the midnight of 29.5.1990 and Ex. P1 had·been handed over l
by him only to the Inspector of Police., Ex. P15 is the printed ~
First lnformation Report. The evidence of PW10 shows that t---
\
Ex.Pl had come to be registered in the Police Station at 10 p.m. J.
>-
on 29.5.1990. Though under normal circumstances, the I
F
evidence of PW7 regarding the time at which he reached the -~
--...
)...
Police. Station and to whom he had handed over the material
records .and the accused would not assume any importance if
there are any other direct circumstance in favour of th·e ~
prosecution, yet, in view of the fact that the prosecution, in this
G
case, rests only upon the extra judicial confession ~tatement t
which does not find corroboration at all on general particulars, •
this evidence of PW7, definitely cannot be brushed asidewhile -'
appreciating the case. of the prosecution.
H
~

'
STATE OF TAMILNADUI v. MANMATHARAJ 741
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

-- }' 6. One other circumstance in the evidence of PW 7 which A
definitely casts doubt on the cas~ of the prosecution is that he
stated that after giving the material records at the Police
Station, he went back home snd·the Observation·Mahazar and
other material records were prepared by the Investigating
Officer commencing from 6 a.m. on 30.5.1990. Therefore, B
according to PW?, after he handed over the material-re·cords
at the Police Station, he went home and. again participated in
~ the exercise done by the Investigating Officer only from 6 a.m.
onwards on the following morning. However, it is seen from _the
evidence of PW 14 that the preparation of records had all been C
done, right from the midnight of 29.5.1990 itself in which PW7
actively participated. If this piece of evidence of PW14 which
stands corroborated by contemporaneous documents is
accepted, then the oral evidence of PW7 that he had handed
over the material records to the Inspector of Police alone cannot O
be totally brushed aside as inadvertent evidence. Why PW 7
'cf
wants to withhold even this piece of correct information in Court,
~ namely, the time at which the material records starting from
Ex.P4 had come to be prepared in a conduct can be definitely
taken into account to doubt the evidence of PW7 and Ex.P1 E:
would not have been registered at 10 p.m. as spoken to by PW
10.

7. When an extra judicial confession is given to the Village
Administrative Officer, he goes to the scene of occurrence; F
observes the dead body as well as the scene; satisfies himself
about the truth of the statement given by the person concerned
and then, prepares the material records. In this case, he did
not do anything of that sort. Over and above all this PW1 has
categorically admitted he knows that when an extra judicial G
confession statement is given to him, he should prepare not
.... only a duplicate of the same but also prepare a duplicate of
;...
the Yadast which must be sent to the Court by him. He had
categorically admitted that he neither sent Ex.P1 nor Ex.P3 to
the Court. He had been a Village Administrative Officer of ten
742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A·. years standing. The.purpose of sending documents likeExs.PI
and P3 ·to the· Court and the copies of the same to the Police
is to.eliminate.false implication and to add.credibility to the extra·
jud.idal. confession·sfatement itself The failure on the part of ·
PW1 to. s.end ~he material. records to the Court, especially, when
1

B he. w~s. aware· of his duty in that regard is yet another
circumstance which is sufficient to doubt the entire case of the I
prosecution put through PWs 1 and 7. , I

8. The High Court has rightly held that the prosecution
c version is unacceptable.
9. We find no·infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court
to warrant interference.
10. The appeal is dismissed.
D
R.P. Appeal dismissed.

..