Holding

A conviction may be recorded solely on the basis of an extra‑judicial confession if it is credible and worthy of acceptance, and corroboration need not be in material particulars.

Summary

The appellant, Velayuda Pulavar, was tried for the murder of his brother Viswanatha Pulavar and the concealment of the dead body under IPC sections 302 and 201. The prosecution's case rested primarily on an extra‑judicial confession recorded by the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) in the presence of several witnesses, in which the appellant admitted to cutting his brother with an aruval and burying the body with the deceased's wife. The trial court convicted the appellant, and the Madras High Court upheld the conviction, rejecting the argument that an extra‑judicial confession lacks evidentiary value. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that an extra‑judicial confession can alone support a conviction if it is found credible and worthy of acceptance, and that corroboration need not be in material particulars but can be general. The Court found the VAO’s record and the testimony of another witness sufficient to establish the confession’s voluntariness and credibility, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether an extra‑judicial confession can be the sole basis for conviction under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
Whether corroboration of an extra‑judicial confession must be in material particulars or can be general.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

extra‑judicial confessioncorroborationmurderIPC 302IPC 201evidentiary valueconviction

Judgment

.. t
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 383

VELAYUDA PULAVAR A
v.
STATE BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2002)
APRIL 16, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
... GANGULY, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860·- ss. 302 and 201 - Illicit relation of
wife of deceased and appellant - Quarrel between deceased c
and appellant - Murder of deceased - Extra judicial
confession of appellant before Village Administrative Officer
- Conviction by courts below - Held: Justified - Conviction
can be recorded solely on the basis of extra judicial
- 't
confession if it is found to be credible and worthy of D
acceptance - Corroboration of judicial confession or extra
judicial confession need not be in material particulars - It can
be in general - Evidence of Village Administrative Officer
coupled with that of other prosecution witness makes it clear
that there was voluntary extra-judicial confession made by E
appellant before Village Administrative Officer.

, The question which arose for consideration in this
- ~
appeal was whether the appellants were justified in
convicting the appellant for offences punishable uls. 302
and 201 IPC relying on the extra judicial confession F

-\
-I
made by the accused.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: In the instant case, the extra judicial
confession was made before the Village Administrative
G

Officer-PW 1 who is not a stranger to the first accused
and he knew him for quite some time. The evidence on
record clearly establishes that the confession was
383 H
-
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A recorded by PW.1 in the Panchayat Office in the presence
of many persons. The evidence of PW. 3 also
corroborates the version of PW. 1 that the present
appellant made extra judicial confession in the Panchayat
Office and he is one of the attestors to it. So far as plea
B relating to corroboration is concerned, if the court looks
for such corroboration of a judicial confession or an extra
judicial confession, same need not be in material
particulars. It can be and will have to be only
corroboration in general. Each an.d every piece of
C information mentioned in the extra-judicial confession
need not be corroborated by independent evidence. The
conviction can be recorded solely on the basis of the
extra judicial confession if it is found to be credible and
worthy of acceptance. PW.1's evidence coupled with that
D of PW.3 makes the position clear that there was a
voluntary extra-judicial confession made by the appellant
before the Village Administrative Officer. That being so, i -

there is no scope for interference in appeal. [Para 10)
(386-E-H; 387-A]

E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 595 of 2002.

From the Judgment & Order dated 17.12.1999 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal. No. 242 of
F 1990.

V. Mohana, for the Appellant.

G
S. Thananjayan for lhe Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
-
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court
upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable
H under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
VELAYUDA PULAVAR v. STATE BY SUB- 385
_.. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~
2. Two persons faced trial for commission of murder of A
Viswanatha Pulavar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased").
The appellant is the younger brother of the deceased while the
second accused was the wife of the deceased.

3. Learned Sessions Judge, Tirunervelli, held the appellant B
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201
IPC; but directed acquittal of the co-accused of the charges
~
relating to offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC. Though the co-accused has been convicted
for the offence· punishable under Section 201 IPC she did not
question her conviction under the said offence.
c
4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-

5. The appellant and the deceased and his wife were
staying together. There were frequent quarrels between the D
deceased and the present appetlal)t as the former suspected
- r- the fidelity of his wife (accused No.2) and he was of the
confirmed view that the appellant was having illicit relationship
with his wife.
E
6. On 18.6.1986, the Village Administrative Officer PW.1
of the concerned village found that a a big crowd had
assembled at the Panchayat Office at about 7.30 P.M. In that
crowd, he noticed PW.2, PW.3, the accused persons, and
-~
others. He was told that the accused had murdered the
F
deceased and had buried him in the Punja land. When PW.1
enquired from the appellant he made an extra judicial
confession stating that he had cut his brother Viswanatha
. Pulavar with (aruval) (M.0.1), and both he and the second
accused buried him in the punja land. The statement which is
' Ex. P.1 was reduced into writing, read-over and the accused G
~
appellant put his signature thereon. PW.1 and PW.2 attested
the same. Thereafter the special report (Ex.P.2) was written and
the same was handed over to the Sub-Inspector of Police
. (PW.9). The accused persons were also handed over to the
1
, police along with Exs. P .1 and P .2. The investigation was H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S. C.R.

A undertaken and on completion thereof charge sheet was filed.
~
-,
Since the accused persons pleaded not guilty, trial was held
primarily placing reliance on the evidence of PW.1 and the extra
judicial confession.

B 7. The accused appellant was held guilty.

8. In the appeal before the High Court it was submitted that
the extra judicial confession has no evidentiary value and, )
therefore, the trial court was not justified in recording the
conviction. The High Court by the impugned judgment
c dismissed the appeal holding that the extra-judicial confession
provided sufficient material to hold the accused guilty.

9. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that without any corroboration merely on the
D extra-judicial confession, the conviction could not have been
recorded. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other ~ ....
hand, supported the judgment of the High Court.

10. In the instant case, the extra judicial confession was
made before the Village Administrative Officer who is not a
E
stranger to the first accused and he knew him for quite some
time. The evidence on record clearly establishes that Ex. P.1
was recorded by the Village Administrative Officer PW. 1 in the
Panchayat Office in the presence of many persons. The
evidence of PW. 3 also corroborates the version of PW. 1 that
~ -
F the present appellant made extra judicial confession (Ex. P.1)
in the Panchayat Office and he is one of the attestors to Ex.
P.1. So far as plea relating to _corroboration is concerned, if
the court looks for such corroboration of a judicial confession
or an extra judicial confession, same need not be in material
G particulars. It can be and will have to be only corroboration in .l
general. Each and every piece of information mentioned in the
extra-judicial confession need not be corroborated by
independent evidence. It is well settled that conviction can be
recorded solely on the basis of the extra judicial confession if
H it is found to be credible and worthy of acceptance. PW.1's
VELAYUDA PULAVAR v. STATE BY SUB- 387

-· INSPECTOR OF POLICE [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
evidence coupled with that of PW.3 makes the position clear
that there was a voluntary extra-judicial confession made by the
A

appellant before the Village Administrative Officer (PW.1 ). That
being so, we find no scope for interference in this appeal. The
appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is on bail. His
bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The appellant shall surrender B
to custody forthwith to serve remainder of the sentence.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.

-->j