# SITA RAM v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1966] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 265
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-04-25
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. H 118 of 1964
- **Bench:** A. K. Sarkar, C.J .• J. R. Mudholkar, R. S. Bachawat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sita-ram-v-state-of-uttar-pradesh-3850
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Indian Evidence Act. 1872 (1 of 1872), s. 25-Confessional letter to
Police Officer-Admissibitity.
The appellant was convicted for urder under s. 302 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution relied on amongst other materials, a letter.
The letter contained a confession and was addressed to the SubInspector. The appellant wrote the letter with the intention
that it should be received by the Sub-Inspector, kept it near the
dead body and left the l:ouse after locking it. The lock was broken
open and the letter was recovered by the Sub-Inspector. In appeal to
this Court the admissibility of this letter was challenged.
HELD: (Per Curium) There was sufficient material on the record, apart from this letter, establishing the guilt of the appellant.
Per Sarkar, C.J. and Mudholkar, J :-The letter was admissible
in evidence.
No doubt, the letter contained a confession and \Vas addressed
to a police officer. That could not make it a confession made to the police officer which is within the bar created by s. 25 of the Evidence
Act. The Police Officer was not nearby when the letter was written
or knew that .it was being written. In such circumstances quite obviously the letter would not have been a confession to the police officer if the '\Vords "Sub-Inspector" had not b-een written. Nor it can
become one in similar circumstances only because the words "SubInspector" has been written there. It would still have not been a
confession made to a police officer for the simple reason that it was
not so made from any point of view. [267 H-268 Bl
Per Bachawat J.,-The letter was inadmissible in evidence and
F
was a confession made to a police officer. [268 D-E]
A confe:;sion to a police officer was within the bar of s. 25, though
it was not made in his presence·. A confessional letter written to a P<r
lice officer and sent to him by post, m·essenger or otherv,.rise is not
outside the ban of s. 25 because the police officer was ignorant of
the letter at the moment when it was being written. [268 G].
R. V. Hurrioole, (1876) I.L.R. 1 Cal. 207, approved.
G

## Text

(
·~
265
A
SITA RAM
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
B
April 25, 1965
c
D
E
[A. K. SARKAR, C.J .• J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.)
Indian Evidence Act. 1872 (1 of 1872), s. 25-Confessional letter to
Police Officer-Admissibitity.
The appellant was convicted for urder under s. 302 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution relied on amongst other materials, a letter.
The letter contained a confession and was addressed to the SubInspector. The appellant wrote the letter with the intention
that it should be received by the Sub-Inspector, kept it near the
dead body and left the l:ouse after locking it. The lock was broken
open and the letter was recovered by the Sub-Inspector. In appeal to
this Court the admissibility of this letter was challenged.
HELD: (Per Curium) There was sufficient material on the record, apart from this letter, establishing the guilt of the appellant.
Per Sarkar, C.J. and Mudholkar, J :-The letter was admissible
in evidence.
No doubt, the letter contained a confession and \Vas addressed
to a police officer. That could not make it a confession made to the police officer which is within the bar created by s. 25 of the Evidence
Act. The Police Officer was not nearby when the letter was written
or knew that .it was being written. In such circumstances quite obviously the letter would not have been a confession to the police officer if the '\Vords "Sub-Inspector" had not b-een written. Nor it can
become one in similar circumstances only because the words "SubInspector" has been written there. It would still have not been a
confession made to a police officer for the simple reason that it was
not so made from any point of view. [267 H-268 Bl
Per Bachawat J.,-The letter was inadmissible in evidence and
F
was a confession made to a police officer. [268 D-E]
A confe:;sion to a police officer was within the bar of s. 25, though
it was not made in his presence·. A confessional letter written to a P<r
lice officer and sent to him by post, m·essenger or otherv,.rise is not
outside the ban of s. 25 because the police officer was ignorant of
the letter at the moment when it was being written. [268 G].
R. V. Hurrioole, (1876) I.L.R. 1 Cal. 207, approved.
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
H
118 of 1964.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 2, 1964 of
the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2531 of 1963
referred No. 160 of 1963.
K. L. Sharma and Harbans Singh, for the appellant
0. l' Rana, for the respondent.
L."S5SCI-l 9(a)
266
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[!966) SUPP. B.C.R.
The Judgment of SARKAR, C.J. and Mt:DHOLKAR, J. was deliA
vered by MUDllOLKAR. J.
BACHAWAT, J. delivered
a separate
Opinion.
Modholkar, J. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaon, after
convicting the appellant Sita Ram of an offence
under s.
302,
Indian Penal Code for the murder of his wife Sindura Rani. has
•
sentenced him to death. The High Court of Allahabad affirmed his
conviction but reduced the sentence to one of imprisonment for
life.
The fact that Sindura Rani met with a homicidal death is not
in dispute. What is. however. contended on b~half of the appeUant
is that there is no e"idcncc on the basis of which his conviction
could be based. Admilledly there arc no ey~-witnesscs to the occurrence. The prosecution case against him rests on the followin&
material:
(I) motive; 12l opportunity; (3) subsecruent conduct; (<4) false
explanation and (5) confessional statements.
There is ample evidence on record to show that the relations
between the appellant and his wife were very much strained, that
Ute two were living apart and that this was because the appellant
suspected that his wife was a woman of loose character. This evidence consists of the testimony of some near relatives and also of
several letters written by the appellant to bis wife Simlura Rani,
to his mother-in-law Inder Kaur (P.W. 21 and to his brother-in-law
Tilak Raj (P.W. II. The appellant had denied that the letters were
D
in his hand-wr;ting but it has been found by l;>oth the courts below
that they were in fact written by him. The finding of each of the ii
two courts below that the relations between the appellant and his
wife were strained bec;1Use the appdlant not merely suspected the
fidelity of his wife but also charged her with unchastity being one
of fact cannot be lightly permitted to be questione,1 in an appeal by
special leave. r\o ground has been made out by learned counsel
which would justify our looking into the evidence for ourselves.
Similarly. on the question of opportunity, Sindura Rani who
had gone to stay with her people had been asked by the appellant
to return home on the pretext that one of their children was ill and
accordingly she arrived at Kashipur where the appellant lived only
F
5 or 6 days prior l<l the incident. Since her return she and the appellant were the only two adult persons Jiving in the house of the
appellant. The only other person living with them was their
11
daughter about two years old.
When the Sub-Inspector of Police arrived on the morning of
September 15. 1962 after receiving a report that the appellant's
house was locked from outside and the crv of a child from inside
could be heard. found the outer door of ihe house locked. After
breaking it open he found a lantern burning by the side of the dead II
body of Sindura Rani. From these facts the courts below were
justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had an
SITA RAM v. ATATE (Murl,holkor, J.)
2117
A
opportunity to commit the murder of his wife Sindura Rani. The
appellant's defence that he had gone to Punjab along with one
Pritam Singh on September 13, 1962 and could return from there
on September 19, has not been accepted by the two courts below
in the absence of any material to substantiate it.
I
In addition to these there is the fact that the appellant could
0
D
!J
not be found till September 19, on which date he surrendered him
self before the court. It would be reasonable to infer from this that
he was absconding till this date. The explanation which the appel.
!ant gave concerning his absence has been rightly rejected as false.
In the circumstances there was adequate material before the courts
below upon which his conviction could be based.
In addition to this circumstantial evidence the prosecution
placed reliance upon Ex. Ka 9. This is a letter elated September 14,
1962 addressed to the 'Sub-Inspector' and bears the signature of the
appellant in Urdu. It reads thus:
"I have myselt committed the murder of my wife Smt.
Sindura Rani. Nobody else perpetrated this crime. I would
appear myself after 20 or 25 days and then will state everything. One day the law will extend its hands and will get me
arrested. I would surrender myself.
(Sd. in Urdu\ Sita Ram Naroola,
14th September, 1962."
On the back of this letter is written the following:
'"Tt is the first and the last offence of my life. I have not
done any illegal act nor I had the courage to do that, but this
woman compelled me to do so and I had to break the law."
F
This letter was found on a table near the dead body of Sindura
Rani. It was noticed by the Sub-Inspector Jagbir Singh. P.W. 16
and seized in the μresence of three persons who attested the seizure
memo and were later examined as witnesses in the case. The prosecution has established satisfactori!v that the letter is in the handwriting of the appellant and that the signature it bears is also that
of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged
G
the admissibility of this letter on the ground that it amounts to a
confession to a police officer and that. therefore, s 25 of the Evidence Act renders it inaclmissihle in evidence. We do not think that
the objection is well-founded. No doubt, the letter contains a confession and is also addressed to a police officer. That cannot make
it a confession made to a police officer which is within the bar
R
created by s. 25 of the Evidence Act. The police officer was not
nearby when tile letter •;vas written or knew that it was being
written. In such circumstances quite obviously the letter would not
'
SUPREl\IE COURT REPORTS.
[IG66] SUPP. s.c.R.
268
''have been a confession to the police officer if the words "SubA·
Inspector" had not been written. Nor do we think it can become
one in similar circumstances only because the words "Sub-:lnspector" had been written there. It would still have ·not been a confession made to a police officer for the simple reason that it was not
so made from any point of view.
We agree with the High Court, therefore, that the confession
contained in Ex. Ka-9 is admissible and that if is an additional·
circumstance which can be pressed in aid in support of the charge
against the appellant. However, as already stated, even· without this
confessional statement there was sufficient material before the
courts below on the basis of which the appellant's conviction could
be sustained.
C ·~
The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly· dismissed.
-~·
·-
.
.
Bachawat, J. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act reads:
"No confession made to a police offic~r shall be proved D
as against a p_ers;m accused of any offence."
In my opinion, the letter, Ex. Ka·9, is a confession made to a police
officer, and is not admissible in evidence against the appellant. The
. letter contained a confe~sion, and was addressed to the Sub-Inspec-
. tor; The appellant wrote the letter with the intention that it should
be re..--cived by the Sub-Inspector, kept it on a table near the dead
E ··
body of his wife and left the house after locking it. The lock was
broken open and the letter ·was recovered by the Sub-:Inspector,
Kasipur, to whom the letter was written. The Sub-Inspector received the letter as effectively as if it was sent to him by post of by a
peon.
· · ·
·· · ·
-
·- ·
. It is said that the appelfant made no confession to the Su~" F ·~
Inspector, inasmuch as the· officer was not present near the appel- -
!ant when he wrote the Jetter. I do not see why a.confession cannot:
be made_ to a police officer unless he is present in the immediate· -
vicinity of the accused. A confession can be made to a police officer ·
by an oral message to him over the telephone or the radio as .also ·
by a written message communicated to him through :post. messen-:
ger or otherwise. The presence or absence of the police officer near·- G .
the accused is not decisive on the question whether_ the confession·
is hit by s. 25. A confession to a stranger though ·made . in the ·
· presence of a police officer is not hit by s. 25. On the other hand,~
confession to a police officer is within the ban of s. 25, though it
was not made in his p:esence. -A: confessional letter written to a·.
police officer and sent to him by post, messenger or otherwise is. H ~:
not outside the ban of s.·25 becai:se the po)ice p_l)!c~~-.W:~.~n'?ra.~t_: __
of the letter at the momentwhen 1t.was·JJemgwntten. · •
,:-.:.:.:
,
+
•
sIT; i'AM '/', 81'.olTE (Bachawat, J,)
2f)9
A
In R. V. Hurribo/e('), Garth, C.J. said that s. 25 is an enactc
ment to which the Court should give the fullest effect. He added:
"I think it better in construing a section such as the 25th,
which was intended as a wholesome protection to the accused,
to construe it in its widest and most popular signification."
In its widest and most popular signification, the phrase "confession
made to a police officer" includes a confession made to a police
officer in a letter written to him and subsequently received by him.
We should not cut down the wholesome protection of s. 25 by
refined arguments.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Courts below were in
error in admitting Ex. Ka-9 against the appellant.
I, however, agree that, apart from Ex. Ka-9 there are sufficient
materials on the record establishing the guilt of the appellant. The
appeal must, therefore, fail.
The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
•
l 1!4!!ii
filS :4f::.
F
P
:.
. --··