Page 1

       REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1706 OF 2008

R. Kuppusamy …Appellant

Versus

State Rep. by Inspector of Police,  Ambeiligai …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. The short question that falls for determination in this appeal  

by  special  leave  is  whether  the  Courts  below  were  justified  in  

convicting the appellant for the offence of murder punishable under  

Section 302 IPC and in awarding imprisonment for life to him on the  

basis of an extra-judicial confession that he is alleged to have made  

before the Village Administrative Officer, Veriappur, (VAO for short).  

The  extra  judicial  confession  was,  according  to  the  prosecution,  

reduced to writing by the VAO and found sufficient by the trial Court  

as  also  by  the  High  Court  to  hold  the  appellant  guilty  of  having

Page 2

committed the offence with which he was charged. That finding and  

the  consequent  orders  recorded  by  the  Courts  below  have  been  

assailed by learned counsel for the appellant who argued that the  

making  of  the  confessional  statement  was,  in  the  facts  and  

circumstances  of  the  case,  not  only  improbable  but  wholly  

unsupported  and  uncorroborated  by  any  independent  evidence.  

Relying upon several decisions of this Court, it was argued that the  

extra  judicial  confession  was  by  its  very  nature  a  weak  type  of  

evidence which ought to be corroborated by independent evidence in  

order to support a conviction of the maker of the confession. No such  

corroboration was, according to Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani forthcoming  

in  the  instant  case,  which  rendered  the  conviction  and  order  of  

sentence passed by the Courts below unsustainable in law.   

2. Before we refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution at  

the trial in support of the charge framed against the appellant we  

may briefly recapitulate  the factual  matrix in which the offence is  

alleged to have been committed.  According to the prosecution the  

appellant is a resident of Veriappur village of Annamalaiputhur village  

within the police station limits of Oddanchatram.  He got married to  

one Yuvarani nearly two years before the incident. Within about 10  

months of the marriage, the couple was blessed with a female child  

whom they named Savitha. The prosecution case is that the accused-

Page 3

appellant had developed some suspicion about the birth of the child  

though  it  is  not  very  clear  whether  the  suspicion  was  about  the  

paternity of the child or the child being unlucky for the family. Be that  

as it may, around the time the incident occurred the appellant is said  

to have visited his village to perform the mundan ceremony of the  

child  who  was  just  about  10  months  old.  His  parents  were  not,  

however, much excited about the mundan ceremony to be followed  

by the feast. They are alleged to have told the appellant that ever  

since  the  child  was  born,  the  family  was  facing  problems.   The  

prosecution version further is that since the appellant had already  

developed a suspicion about the child, he at about 11.00 a.m. on 18th  

March, 2005 picked up the child and threw her in a well resulting in  

the child’s death by drowning. After throwing the child into the well  

the  appellant  is  alleged  to  have  gone  to  PW-5  Sakthivel,  Vice  

President  of  Veripur  Panchayat  Board,  and  told  him that  he  had  

thrown his daughter  into the well.  PW-5 Sakthivel is said to have  

advised  the  appellant  to  go  to  PW-1  S.K.  Natarajan,  Village  

Administrative Officer of Veriappur. The appellant accordingly went to  

PW-1 S.K. Natarajan and narrated the incident to him. PW-1 S.K.  

Natarajan is alleged to have recorded the statement made by the  

appellant and taken the appellant along with him to the police station  

where the former lodged the first information report regarding the

Page 4

incident  and  produced  the  extra  judicial  confession  made  by  the  

appellant before the police.   

3. A  case was in the  above backdrop registered in the  police  

station at Amblikkai under Section 302 IPC and investigation started  

in the course whereof the dead body of the child was subjected to  

post-mortem  which  revealed  that  the  child  had  died  because  of  

drowning. A charge sheet was eventually laid by the police against  

the appellant for  committing the murder  of his daughter  to  which  

charge the appellant pleaded not guilty resulting in his trial before the  

Court of Sessions at Dindigul.  

4. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses  

in  support  of  its  case.  The  appellant  did  not  choose  to  lead  any  

evidence in his defence but pleaded innocence and false implication in  

the statement made by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court  

eventually came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the  

appellant stood proved on the basis of the extra judicial confession  

made  by  him  before  PW-1  S.K.  Natarajan,  Village  Administrative  

Officer of Veriappur. The Court accordingly pronounced him guilty and  

sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the order  

passed by the trial  Court,  the appellant  preferred Criminal Appeal  

No.224 of 2005 before the High Court of Madras.  The High Court  

concurred with the view taken by the trial Court and dismissed the

Page 5

appeal.  In the process, the High Court affirmed the finding recorded  

by the trial Court that the appellant had indeed made an extra judicial  

confession  which  was,  according  to  the  High  Court,  reliable  and  

provided a safe basis for the Court to hold him guilty. The present  

appeal assails the correctness of the aforementioned judgments and  

orders as already noticed above.

5. It  is  common ground  that  there  is  no  eye  witness  to  the  

occurrence leading to the death of the unfortunate female child who  

was just about ten months old.  The prosecution case rests entirely  

on the extra judicial confession attributed to the appellant which has  

been found by the trial Court as also the High Court to be voluntary  

and truthful. That a truthful extra judicial confession made voluntarily  

and without any inducement can be made a basis for recording a  

conviction  against  the  person  making  the  confessions  was  not  

disputed  before  us  at  the  hearing.   What  was  argued  by  Ms.  

Mahalakshmi Pavani, counsel appearing for the appellant, was that an  

extra judicial confession being in its very nature an evidence of a  

weak type, the Courts would adopt a cautious approach while dealing  

with such evidence and record a conviction only if the extra judicial  

confession  is,  apart  from being found truthful  and voluntary,  also  

corroborated by other evidence. There was, according to the learned  

counsel, no such corroboration forthcoming in the present case which

Page 6

according to her  was sufficient  by itself  to  justify rejection of  the  

confessional statement as a piece of evidence against the appellant.  

Reliance, in support of the contention urged by the learned counsel,  

was placed upon the decisions of this Court in Gura Singh v. State  

of  Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205 and  Sahadevan and Anr. v.   

State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403.  In  Gura Singh’s case  

(supra) a two-Judge Bench of this Court was also dealing with an  

extra judicial confession and the question whether the same could be  

made a basis for recording the conviction against the accused.  This  

Court held that despite the inherent weakness of an extra judicial  

confession as a piece of evidence, the same cannot be ignored if it is  

otherwise shown to be voluntary and truthful. This Court also held  

that  extra  judicial  confession cannot  always be  termed as  tainted  

evidence and that corroboration of such evidence is required only as a  

measure of abundant caution. If the Court found the witness to whom  

confession was made to be trustworthy and that the confession was  

true and voluntary, a conviction can be founded on such evidence  

alone. More importantly, the Court declared that Courts cannot start  

with the presumption that extra judicial confession is always suspect  

or a weak type of evidence but it would depend on the nature of the  

circumstances,  the  time  when  the  confession  is  made  and  the  

credibility of the witnesses who speak about such a confession and

Page 7

whether the confession is voluntary and truthful.

6. In Sahadevan’s case (supra) a two-Judge Bench of this Court  

comprehensively reviewed the case law on the subject and concluded  

that an extra judicial confession is an admissible piece of evidence  

capable of supporting the conviction of an accused provided the same  

is made voluntarily and is otherwise found to be truthful. This Court  

also  reiterated  the  principle  that  if  an  extra  judicial  confession  is  

supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is corroborated by  

other  evidence,  it  acquires credibility.  To  the  same effect  are  the  

decisions of this Court in Balbir Singh and Anr. V. State of Punjab  

1996 (SCC)  Crl.  1158  and Jaspal  Singh  @  Pali  v.  State  of   

Punjab (1997) 1 SCC 510.

7. It is unnecessary, in the light of above pronouncements, to  

embark upon any further review of the decisions of this Court on the  

subject. The legal position is fairly well-settled that an extra judicial  

confession is capable of sustaining a conviction provided the same is  

not made under any inducement, is voluntary and truthful. Whether  

or not these attributes of an extra judicial confession are satisfied in a  

given case will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of  

each case. It  is eventually the satisfaction of the Court  as to the  

reliability  of  the  confession,  keeping  in  view the  circumstances  in  

which the same is made, the person to whom it is alleged to have

Page 8

been made and the corroboration, if any, available as to the truth of  

such  a  confession  that  will  determine  whether  the  extra  judicial  

confession ought to be made a basis for holding the accused guilty.

8. In the case at hand the trial Court as also the first Appellate  

Court have both found the extra judicial confession attributed to the  

appellant to be voluntary, truthful and unaffected by any inducement  

that could render it unreliable or unworthy of credence. Having heard  

learned counsel  for  the  parties  at  considerable  length  and having  

gone through the evidence adduced at the trial, we are of the view  

that the conclusion drawn by the Courts below is not vitiated by any  

error of fact or law.  The confessional statement in the case at hand  

has  been  made  by  the  appellant  almost  immediately  after  the  

commission of the crime. The appellant is alleged to have gone over  

to PW-1 S.K. Natarajan, Village Administrative Officer, who was the  

concerned Village Administrative Officer of Veriappur and narrated to  

the witness the genesis of the incident leading to his throwing baby  

Savitha into the well at a short distance from his house. PW-1 S.K.  

Natarajan  recorded  the  confessional  statement  of  the  appellant,  

which was marked Exh. P-1 at the trial, and got the same signed  

from  the  appellant  and  took  the  appellant  with  him  to  the  

jurisdictional police station.  At the police station PW-1 S.K. Natarajan  

got the first information report regarding the incident registered as

Page 9

Crime  No.61/05  setting  legal  process  into  motion  in  the  course  

whereof Investigating Officer was taken to the well by the appellant in  

which he had thrown the child. At the well, the Inspector of police  

prepared the Mahazar which was signed by the witness including PW-

1 S.K. Natarajan himself and took charge of the dead body of the  

child which had, by that time, been brought out of the well.  A towel  

lying about 20 ft. from the well was also seized.   

9. PW-1 S.K. Natarajan was cross-examined at length but there  

is nothing in the cross-examination that could possibly discredit his  

deposition. No enmity has ever existed between the witness and the  

appellant  to suggest  a false implication of the appellant.  The only  

significant suggestion made in the course of the cross-examination, is  

that the confessional statement was not recorded by the witness in  

his  office  as  stated  by  him but  at  the  police  station  and  in  the  

presence of the sub-inspector concerned.  This suggestion has been  

denied by the witness including the suggestion that the statement  

ought to have been recorded in the prescribed form under the rules  

and  the  reason  why  it  was  not  so  recorded  was  because  the  

statement had been put in black and white at the police station using  

an ordinary white paper.  The witness stated that the statement was  

recorded on a plain paper  because the prescribed forms were not  

readily available in his office.

Page 10

10. The deposition of PW-1 S.K. Natarajan inspires confidence in  

the absence of any material deficiency in the same either in terms of  

what has been recorded by him or the procedure that he followed  

while doing so. More importantly, there is no suggestion that  this  

witness had any animosity or other reason which would impel him to  

go so far  as to involve the appellant in a case of murder.  Courts  

below have, in our opinion, correctly appreciated the deposition of  

this witness and found him to be reliable. The concurrent finding of  

fact returned by the two Courts, has not, in our opinion caused any  

miscarriage of justice to warrant our taking a different view.

11. Coming  to  the  question  whether  the  statement  was  

corroborated by other evidence, we find that such corroboration is  

indeed  forthcoming  in  the  form  of  medical  evidence  and  the  

deposition of other witnesses. The medical evidence adduced in the  

case suggests that the death of the deceased child was homicidal and  

that the same was caused by drowning.  The deposition of PW-10 Dr.  

A. Muthusamy, in our opinion, is clear on this aspect, although it was  

vehemently contended by Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, that the doctor  

had not mentioned the presence of water in the lungs of the child  

which, according to her, showed that the story of the child dying by  

drowning was unsupported by medical evidence. The fact, however,  

remains that the doctor has reported the lungs of the deceased to be

Page 11

congested. Congestion of lungs implies presence of excess fluids in  

the lungs, a sign suggesting that the child would have inhaled excess  

fluid while in water. In addition, there is a finding by the doctor that  

there  was  200  MLs.  of  watery  fluid  even  in  the  stomach  of  the  

deceased. According to Modi’s Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the  

presence in the stomach of a certain quantity of water is regarded as  

an important sign of death by drowning. It is almost impossible for  

water to get into the stomach, if a body is submerged after death.

12. All this suggests that the death was caused by taking in water  

which  one  usually  does  while  struggling  in  a  drowning  situation.  

Absence of any other marks on the body of the child also supports  

the prosecution case that the deceased had indeed died of drowning.  

The confessional statement thus gets sufficient corroboration as to  

the cause of the death of the child.   

13. That apart the depositions of other witnesses examined before  

the trial Court also lend corroboration to the prosecution version. For  

instance PW-2 Kanakaran deposed that he was plucking chilly in his  

field near  the field of the appellant on the fateful day. At  around  

12.00 noon the  witness heard someone crying at  Chelimedu.  The  

witness and other persons in the vicinity rushed and looked into the  

well only to find the dead body of the child floating.  The witness  

descended into the well and picked up the child and brought her out.

Page 12

The child was dead. The wife of the appellant was crying and saying  

that the child had been thrown into the well and that the appellant  

had killed her.  

14. In cross-examination the witness expressed ignorance about  

any ‘mundan’ ceremony or arrangements for the same having been  

made by the appellant and that he had no invitation for any such  

ceremony. The wife of the appellant was, according to the witness,  

saying that the appellant ‘suspected the birth’ of the child meaning  

thereby that the appellant was either suspicious about the paternity  

of the child or her being unlucky for the family.

15. To  the  same  effect  is  the  statement  of  PW-3  Palanisamy  

according  to  whom  the  wife  of  the  appellant  was  crying  aloud.  

Persons from the nearby fields came running to the well and so did  

this witness. The appellant’s wife was heard saying that the child had  

been killed. Kanakaran PW-2 climbed down the well and brought the  

body of the child out and kept the same on the western side of the  

well.  Inspector of police reached in due course and interrogated him.  

16. PW-4 Manoharan was declared hostile but was cross-examined  

and confronted with the statement made before the police regarding  

the appellant having been seen by him walking away from the place  

of occurrence under tension.  PW-5 Sakthivel, President of Veripur  

Panchayat Board, stated that the appellant had come to him and told

Page 13

him that the child had fallen into the well and asked him as to what  

he should do in the matter. He had told him to go to Maniakarar. This  

witness was also declared hostile and confronted with the statement  

made before the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.  

17. Statement  of  PW-6  Palaniammal  who  happened  to  be  the  

grandmother of the deceased child is also significant. This witness  

stated that the child was born 10 months after the marriage of the  

appellant. The wife of the appellant had stayed on with her parents’  

for seven months after the child was born. She was finally brought to  

her  matrimonial  house  by  the  witness  and  the  appellant.  Three  

months  later,  on  18th March,  2005  the  appellant  returned  from  

Pondicherry where  he  worked and told her  that  he  had come for  

performing the ‘mundan’  ceremony of his daughter  and asked the  

witness why she was going to the field when such a ceremony was  

being  held.   The  witness  stated  that  if  the  ceremony  had  to  be  

organised he should have informed them ten days earlier so that they  

could have arranged to perform the ceremony in a grand manner.  

The witness told him that since she had engaged two persons for  

picking  groundnuts,  he  should  take  his  father  and  perform  the  

mundan. In due course, the father of the appellant also reached the  

field and while picking up groundnuts along with the labourers, they  

received the information that the child was missing. They rushed back

Page 14

only  to  find  the  child  floating  in  the  well.   The  presence  of  the  

appellant in the village on the date of the occurrence is established by  

the deposition of this witness and so is the fact that the parents of  

the appellant were not much concerned or happy to join the proposed  

mundan ceremony.  The prosecution case, it is important to  note, is  

that ever since the child’s birth, there were problems between the  

appellant and his parents regarding the child being unlucky for the  

family  which  resulted  in  the  unfortunate  incident  of  the  appellant  

throwing the child into the well.   

18. It  is  manifest  from  the  above  that  there  is  considerable  

corroborative  evidence  on  record  to  support  the  extra  judicial  

confessional statement of the appellant in which the appellant has  

referred to some kind of suspicion and disagreement between him  

and his parents regarding the child because of which he threw the  

child into the well. Suffice it to say that it is not one of those cases  

where  the  confessional  statement  is  made  to  a  person  whose  

credibility is suspected nor is it a case where there is no corroboration  

forthcoming from other evidence on record.  On both counts the view  

taken by the Courts below appears to us to be perfectly justified. The  

same, therefore, warrants no interference from us under Article 136  

of the Constitution.   

19. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

Page 15

……………………...…………..………....…J. (T.S. THAKUR)

……………………...……………………...…J. (SUDHANSU JYOTI  MUKHOPADHAYA)

New Delhi February 19, 2013