Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Patiya Vs. State of Rajasthan

Patiya vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 25, 1998
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/768597

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Cr. Appeal No. 424 of 1981
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 24--Extra-judicial confession--There being no other corroborative evidence on record, no conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession made by accused to highly interested witnesses;Appeal Partly Allowed - - The trial court clearly held that there was no eye witness to the incid...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Patiya

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1998(3)WLC176; 1998(1)WLN291

Excerpt

evidence act, 1872 - section 24--extra-judicial confession--there being no other corroborative evidence on record, no conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession made by accused to highly interested witnesses;appeal partly allowed - - the trial court clearly held that there was no eye witness to the incident. it would be very risky and hazardous to base the conviction on the extra judicial confession made by the accused, which itself is a very weak piece of evidence. there are series of judgments of the hon'ble supreme court, wherein, it has been held that it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the accused. 2. when the learned trial judge himself has found that the evidence of these witnesses was not reliable and they were the interested witnesses for other purposes then for the purpose of extra judicial confession their evidence cannot be relied upon.b.j. shethna, j.1. the appellant accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 304 part ii ipc for committing murder of his wife. the trial court has not convicted the accused under section 302 ipc but has convicted him under section 304 part ii ipc as he was of the opinion that the accused had no intention to kill his wife. for convicting the accused under section 304 part ii ipc he relied upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused before the p.w. 2, dala and pw 3, kansa who are the brothers of the deceased wife. except this there was no other evidence. the trial court clearly held that there was no eye witness to the incident. it would be very risky and hazardous to base the conviction on the extra judicial confession made by the accused, which itself is a very weak piece of evidence. the same can be used for the purpose of corroboration to the other evidence on record, which is lacking in this case. there are series of judgments of the hon'ble supreme court, wherein, it has been held that it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the accused. in a given case it creates doubt in the mind of the court about the accused making extra judicial confession to p.w. 2, dal and p.w. 3 kansa, who were the most interest witnesses, the brothers of the deceased indri.2. when the learned trial judge himself has found that the evidence of these witnesses was not reliable and they were the interested witnesses for other purposes then for the purpose of extra judicial confession their evidence cannot be relied upon.3. in view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly (sic) allowed. the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial judge convicting the accused under section 304 part ii ipc is set aside. the accused is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stands cancelled.

Full Judgment

B.J. Shethna, J.

1. The appellant accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC for committing murder of his wife. The trial court has not convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC but has convicted him under Section 304 Part II IPC as he was of the opinion that the accused had no intention to kill his wife. For convicting the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC he relied upon the extra judicial confession made by the accused before the P.W. 2, Dala and PW 3, Kansa who are the brothers of the deceased wife. Except this there was no other evidence. The trial court clearly held that there was no eye witness to the incident. It would be very risky and hazardous to base the conviction on the extra judicial confession made by the accused, which itself is a very weak piece of evidence. The same can be used for the purpose of corroboration to the other evidence on record, which is lacking in this case. There are series of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, it has been held that it would be unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of extra judicial confession made by the accused. In a given case it creates doubt in the mind of the court about the accused making extra judicial confession to P.W. 2, Dal and P.W. 3 Kansa, who were the most interest witnesses, the brothers of the deceased Indri.

2. When the learned trial Judge himself has found that the evidence of these witnesses was not reliable and they were the interested witnesses for other purposes then for the purpose of extra judicial confession their evidence cannot be relied upon.

3. In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly (Sic) allowed. The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge convicting the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC is set aside. The accused is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds stands cancelled.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial