Sahoo vs. State of U.P. (1965)

The case of Sahoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965) is a landmark judgement that clarified the admissibility of self-incriminating statements, particularly those not communicated to another person. The Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether muttering to oneself can be treated as a confession under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This judgement plays a significant role in criminal law and the law of evidence, especially in understanding how extra-judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence operate together to establish guilt.

Confession and admission are important exceptions to the hearsay rule. Both are accepted as evidence under the Evidence Act, provided they meet the test of relevancy and voluntariness. The present case examined whether a statement muttered by the accused, not directly addressed to another person, could amount to a confession. The decision also highlighted the importance of corroborative circumstantial evidence in securing conviction.

Case Details

• Case Title: Sahoo vs. State of U.P.
• Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1964
• Citation: 1966 AIR 40
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Bench: Justice K. Subbarao, Justice J.C. Shah, and Justice R.S. Bachawat
• Date of Judgement: 16th February 1965
• Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
• Parties:
  • Petitioner: Sahoo
  • Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh
• Provisions Involved:
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Sections 17, 24–30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Facts of Sahoo vs. State of U.P. Case

Sahoo, the appellant, was a resident of Pachperwa in the district of Gonda. He had two sons, Badri and Kripa Shanker. His elder son Badri was employed in Lucknow and had left his wife, Sunderpatti, to live in the family home with Sahoo.

Rumours suggested that Sahoo and his daughter-in-law shared an illicit relationship, though their association was marked by frequent quarrels. On 12th August 1963, during one such quarrel, Sunderpatti fled to the house of a neighbour, Mohammed Abdullah. However, she was persuaded to return to Sahoo’s house later that evening.

That night, Sahoo, Sunderpatti, and Kripa Shanker (his younger son, aged about eight years) were the only persons in the house. The next morning, Sunderpatti was found gravely injured. She was rushed to Sadar Hospital, Gonda, but succumbed to her injuries.

Prosecution witnesses testified that on the same morning, Sahoo was heard muttering to himself that he had “finished Sunderpatti” and thereby ended their daily quarrels. This muttering, along with the circumstantial evidence of quarrels, cohabitation, and last-seen theory, became central to the prosecution’s case.

Sahoo was tried before the Court of Sessions, Gonda, on a charge of murder under Section 302 IPC. The Trial Court convicted him and awarded the death penalty. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. Aggrieved, Sahoo appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Raised

The Sahoo vs. State of U.P. case raised the following important issues:

• Whether muttering by the accused amounts to a confession under the Evidence Act, 1872, and if so, whether it is admissible as evidence under Section 17.
• Whether communication with another person is necessary for a statement to qualify as a valid confession.
• What is the probative value of a confession in the form of a soliloquy.
• Whether the circumstantial evidence presented, combined with the alleged confession, was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments by the Petitioner (Sahoo)

• It was contended that a confession must be communicated to another person to be legally admissible. A mere soliloquy or muttering cannot amount to a confession.
• The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, but there was no direct evidence to prove guilt. The chain of circumstances was argued to be incomplete.
• The petitioner questioned the reliability of witnesses who claimed to have heard the muttering and argued that such statements should not be considered conclusive.
• The defence insisted that without corroborative evidence, the conviction based solely on a muttered statement was unsustainable.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of U.P.)

• The State argued that a valid confession does not necessarily require communication to another person. A self-directed statement, if admitting guilt, is sufficient.
• Witnesses heard the accused muttering words that directly incriminated him. Such a confession, even if not addressed to anyone, falls within the meaning of Section 17 of the Evidence Act.
• The chain of circumstantial evidence was complete—there was proof of quarrels, evidence of last seen together, and testimony of the accused’s son. All circumstances pointed unerringly towards guilt.
• The State maintained that confession and circumstantial evidence together provided sufficient ground to uphold the conviction.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860

This section prescribes punishment for murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or life imprisonment, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 17, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 17 defines admission as an oral or documentary statement which suggests an inference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact. Confession is treated as a species of admission.

Sections 24–30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

These provisions deal with the admissibility and relevancy of confessions. They emphasise that:

• Confession must be voluntary (Section 24).
• Confession made to a police officer is inadmissible (Section 25).
• Confession in police custody is inadmissible unless made before a Magistrate (Section 26).
• Information leading to discovery of facts is admissible (Section 27).
• Confession after removal of inducement is relevant (Section 28).
• Promise of secrecy does not invalidate a confession (Section 29).
• Confession of a co-accused can be considered jointly (Section 30).

Sahoo vs. State of U.P. Judgement 

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on Sahoo. The Court held that:

• The oral statement made by the accused, though muttered to himself, was admissible as a confession under Section 17 of the Evidence Act.
• Communication to another person is not an essential ingredient of a confession. A statement admitting guilt, even if self-directed, qualifies as confession if proved by reliable evidence.
• Circumstantial evidence, combined with the confession, formed a complete chain that excluded every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt.
• The conviction under Section 302 IPC was therefore justified.

Rationale Behind the Judgement in Sahoo vs. State of U.P.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows:

1. Definition of Confession: The Evidence Act does not define confession. Referring to Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, the Court observed that confession means a statement admitting guilt or substantially all facts constituting the offence. By dictionary meaning, “statement” does not necessarily require communication to another.
   
2. Confession as Soliloquy: A confession need not be made to another person. Even a diary entry recording the offence would be admissible as confession if proved. The same logic applies to oral statements muttered by the accused.
   
3. Probative Value: A confession of this kind cannot ordinarily form the sole basis of conviction. However, it has corroborative value when supported by circumstantial evidence.
   
4. Circumstantial Evidence: The Court identified the following important circumstances:
   
   • The accused’s illicit relationship with the deceased.
   • Frequent quarrels between them, including the one on the evening before the death.
   • The deceased being last seen with the accused.
   • Presence of only three individuals in the house on the crucial night—the accused, the deceased, and the accused’s minor son.
   • The son witnessing his father leave the house after hearing a gurgling sound.
   • Witnesses hearing the accused muttering about finishing Sunderpatti.
     
5. Rule of Circumstantial Evidence: The chain of circumstances was complete and pointed towards the guilt of the accused. No alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence was possible.

Thus, the Court concluded that the conviction was legally sustainable.

Conclusion

The decision in Sahoo vs. State of U.P. reinforced the principle that confession is admissible even when it is a soliloquy, provided it is proved by reliable witnesses. The Court emphasised that such confessions, though admissible, should be corroborated by independent evidence. The case also reaffirmed the value of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.