Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2009, Decided on May 9,
2013
The
Court held as under:
“The law is well settled
as to what extent extra-judicial confession can be relied on. If the same is
voluntary and made in a fit state of mind, it can be relied upon along with
other materials. It is true that the extra-judicial confession is a weak type
of evidence and depends upon the nature of circumstances like the time when the
confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a
confession. [Para 8]
In
this case the accused confessed to PW-2.
The Court on the facts and the circumstances of the case held:
“The analysis of the
evidence of PW-2 clearly shows that the extra judicial confession was made by
the accused to her, who is a neighbour. It is also clear from her evidence that
the accused had taken kerosene from her house stating that it was required for
cleaning the machine and thereafter, when PW-2 came out, she was called by the
accused to his house where she witnessed the deceased and her child lying
unconscious in the kitchen. When she questioned the accused about the same, he
admitted to her about the occurrence and compelled her to speak to PW-1
impersonating the deceased by threatening her. It is also clear that among all
the prosecution witnesses, PW-2 was the only witness who saw the deceased and
her child in the kitchen before being burnt and in the hall after they were
burnt. It is only PW-2 before whom the accused had confessed about the
commission of offence under Section 376. The trial Court as well as the High
Court rightly relied on the evidence of PW-2. Her statement before the Court
and confession made by the accused before Shri T.P. Rajesh (PW-28), the
District Revenue Officer corroborates each other. Even in cross-examination,
PW-2 reiterated what she deposed in the examination-in-chief. There is no
reason to disbelieve her testimony, on the other other hand, the same is
acceptable if we consider other circumstances. [Para 10]
The
Court also held that:
“the extra-judicial
confession made to PW-2 has been rightly accepted by the trial Court as the
same is within the parameters of law and withstood the test of reasonableness
and credibility. An overall assessment of the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses clearly establishes the circumstances against the accused in a cogent
manner. It is seen from the evidence of PWs 2 & 3 that the appellant accused
had the motive, namely, he had a lustful eye towards his sister-in-law, which
had been proved beyond doubt. [Para 20]
To see full text follow the link: