minal Appeal No 248 of 1964
87 Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 16 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No 348 of 1964 and capital sentence No 26 of 1964
PC Khanna for the appellant
OP Rana for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao J
Sahoo the appellant is a resident of Pachperwa in the District of Gonda
He has two sons Badri and Kirpa Shanker
He lost his wife years ago
His eldest son Badri married one Sunderpatti
Badri was employed in Lucknow and his wife was residing with his father
It is said that Sunderpatti developed illicit intimacy with Sahoo but there were incessant quarrels between them
On August 12 1963 during one of those quarrelsSunderpatti ran away to the house of one Mohammed Abdullah a neighbour of theirs
The appellant brought her buck and after some wordy altercation between them they slept in the only room of their house
The only other inmate of the house was the appellant s second son Kirpa Shanker a lad of about 8 years
On the morning of August 13 1963 Sunderpatti was found with serious injuries in the room of the house where she was sleeping and the appellant was not in the house
Sunderpatti was admitted in the Sadar Hospital Gonda at 525 pm on that day and she died on August 26 1963 at 3 pm Sahoo was sent up for trial before the Court of Sessions Gonda on a charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
The learned Sessions Judge on a consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that Sahoo killed Sunderpatti
On that finding he convicted the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death
On appeal a Division Bench of the High Court at Allahabad confirmed both the conviction and the sentence
Hence the appeal
Except for an extra judicial confession the entire evidence in the case is circumstantial
Before we advert to the arguments advanced in the appeal it will be convenient to narrate the circumstances found by the High Court which are as follows 1 The accused had illicit connections with the deceased 2 the deceased and the accused had some quarrel on the Janmashtami day in the evening and the deceased had to be persuaded through the influence of their neighbors Mohammed Abdullah and his womenfolk to go back to the house of the accused 3 the deceased was seen in the company of the accused for the fast time when she was alive 4 during the fateful night 3 persons namely
the accused
the deceased and the accused s second son Kirpa Shanker PW 17 slept in the room inside the house 5 on the early morning of next day PW 17 was asked by his father to go out to attend to calls of nature and when he came back to the verandah of the house he heard some gurgling sound and he saw his father going out of the house murmuring something and 6 P Ws 9 11 13 88 and 15 saw the accused going out of the house at about 6 am on that day soliloquying that he had finished Sunderpatti and thereby finished the daily quarrels
This Court in a series of decisions has reaffirmed the following well settled rule of circumstantial evidence
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance fully established
All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency that they should be such as to exclude other hypotheses but the one proposed to be proved
 Before we consider whether the circumstances narrated above would stand the said rigorous test we will at the outset deal with the contention that the soliloquy of the accused admitting his guilt was not an extra judicial confession as the Courts below held it to be
If it was an extra judicial confession it would really partake the character of direct evidence rather than that of circumstantial evidence
It is argued that it is implicit in the concept of confession whether it is extra judicial or judicial that it shall be communicated to another
It is said that one cannot confess to himself he can only confess to another
This raises an interesting point which fails to be decided on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act
Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act deal with the admissibility of confessions by accused persons in criminal cases
But the expression confession is not defined
The Judicial Committee in Pakala Narayana vs R1 has defined the said expression thus A confession is a statement made by an accused  which must either admit in terms the offence
or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence
 A scrutiny of the provisions of sections 17 to 30 of the Evidence Act discloses as one learned author puts it that statement is a genus
admission is the species and confession is the sub species
Shortly stated a confession is a statement made by an accused admitting his guilt
What does the expression statement mean The dictionary meaning of the word statement is the act of stating reciting or presenting verbally or on paper The term statement therefore includes both oral and written statements
Is it also a necessary ingredient of the term that it shall be communicated to another The dictionary meaning of the term does not warrant any such extension nor the reason of the rule underlying the doctrine of admission or confession demands it
Admissions and confessions are exceptions to the hearsay rule
The Evidence Act places them in the category of relevant evidence presumably on the ground that as they are declarations against the interest of the person making them they are probably true
The probative value of 89 an admission or a confession does not depend upon its communication to another though just like any other piece of evidence it can be admitted in evidence only on proof
This proof in the case of oral admission or confession can be offered only by witnesses who heard the admission or confession as the case may be
The following illustration pertaining to a written confession brings out the said idea A kills B enters in his diary that he had killed him puts it in his drawer and absconds
When he places his act on record he does not communicate to another indeed he does not have any intention of communicating it to a third party
Even so at the trial the said statement of the accused can certainly be proved as a confession made by him
If that be so in the case of a statement in writing there cannot be any difference in principle in the case of an oral statement
Both must stand on the same footing
This aspect of the doctrine of confession received some treatment from wellknown authors on evidence like Taylor Best and Phipson
In A Treatise on the Law of Evidence by Taylor 11th Edn Vol
I the following statement appears at p 596 What the accused has been overheard muttering to himself or saying to his wife or to any other person in confidence will be receivable in evidence
 In The Principles of the Law of Evidence by WM Best 12th Edn at p 454 it is stated much to the same effect thus Words addressed to others and writing are no doubt the most usual forms but words uttered in soliloquy seem equally receivable
 We also find the following passage in Phipson on Evidence 7th Edn at p 262 A statement which the prisoner had been overheard muttering to himselff if otherwise than in his sleep is admissible against him if independently proved These passages establish that communication to another is not a necessary ingredient of the concept of confession
In this context a decision of this Court in Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya v The State of Bombay1 may usefully be referred to
There the question was whether a former statement made by a witness within the meaning of  157 of the Evidence Act should have been communicated to another before it could be used to corroborate the testimony of another witness
This Court after considering the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act and the case law on the subject came to the conclusion that the word statement used in section 157 meant only something that is stated and the element of communication was not necessary before something that is stated became a statement under that section
If as we have said statement is the genus and confession is only a sub species of that genus we do not see any reason why the statement implied in the confession should be given 1 1959 Supp 1 SCR 310 90 a different meaning
We therefore hold that a statement whether communicated or not admitting guilt is a confession of guilt
But there is a clear distinction between the admissibility of an evidence and the weight to be attached to it
A confessional soliloquy is a direct piece of evidence
It may be an expression of conflict of emotion a conscious effort to stifle the pricked conscience an argument to find excuse or justification for his act or a penitent or remorseful act of exaggeration of his part in the crime
The tone may be soft and low the words may be confused they may be capable of conflicting interpretations depending on witnesses whether they are biased or honest intelligent or ignorant imaginative or prosaic as the case may be
Generally they are mutterings of a confused mind
Before such evidence can be accepted it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused
Even if so much was established prudence and justice demand that such evidence cannot be made the sole ground of conviction
It may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence
The circumstances found by the High Court which we have stated earlier lead to the only conclusion that the accused must have committed the murder
No other reasonable hypothesis was or could be suggested
Further in this case as we have noticed earlier PWs 11 13 and 15 deposed that they clearly heard the accused say when he opened the door of the house and came out at 60 clock in the morning of the fateful day that he had finished Sunderpatti his daughter in law and thereby finished the daily quarrels
We hold that this extra judicial confession is relevant evidence it certainly corroborates the circumstantial evidence adduced in the case
In the result we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court both in regard to the conviction and the sentence
The appeal fails and is dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant of murder took into account an extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by him when shortly after the murder he was muttering to himself that he had finished the deceased
The High Court confirmed the conviction
In appeal before this Court it was contended that the muttering of the accused did not amount to a confession as it was implicit in the concept of confession whether judicial or extra judicial that it should be communicated to another
A man can
not confess to himself he can only confess to another
HELD i Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act deal with the admissibility of confessions but the expression confession  is not defined
Shortly stated a confession is a statement made by an accused admitting his guilt
88 E Pakala Narayana vs RLR 66 IA 66 referred to
ii It is not a necessary ingredient of the term confession that it shall be communicated to another
The dictionary meaning of the term does not warrant any such extension nor the reason of the rule underlying the doctrine of admission or confession demands it
The probative nature of an admission or confession does not depend on its communication to another though just like any other piece of evidence can be admitted in evidence only on proof
The following illustration pertaining to a written confession brings out the idea A kills B enters in his diary that he had killed him puts it in his drawer and absconds
When he places his act on record he does not communicate to another indeed he does not have any intention of communicating it to a third party
Even so at the trial the said state agent of the accused can certainly be proved as a confession made by him
If that be so in the case of a statement in writing there cannot be any difference in principle in the case of an oral statement 88 H 89 C Bhogilal Chunilal Pandya vs State of Bombay 1959 Supp
1 SCR310reliedon
iii But there is a clear distinction between the admissibility of an item
of evidence and the weight to be attached to it
A confessional soliloquy is a direct piece of evidence
Generally such soliloquies are mutterings of a confused mind
Before such evidence can be accepted it must be established by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused
Even if so much was established prudence and justice demand that such evidence cannot be made the sole ground of conviction
It may be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence
90 B D In the present case the confession along with the other evidence of circumstances was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant