Sita Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh on 25 April, 1965

Sindura Rani was wife of Sita Ram. The relations between the Sita Ram and his wife were very much strained, because the Sita Ram not merely suspected the fidelity of his wife but also charged her with unchastised being one of fact cannot be lightly permitted, that the two were living apart and that this was because the Sita Ram suspected that his wife was a woman of loose character. Sindura Rani who had gone to stay with her people had been asked by the Sita Ram to return home on the pretext that one of their children was ill and she arrived at Kashipur where the Sita Ram lived only 5 or 6 days prior to the incident. Since her return she and the Sita Ram were the only two adult persons living in the house of the appellant. The only other person living with them was their daughter about two years old. Sita Ram had an opportunity to commit the murder of his wife Sindura Rani.  

On the morning of September 15, 1962, Sita Ram's house was locked from outside and the cry of a child from inside could be heard, found the outer door of the house locked. After breaking it open he found a lantern burning by the side of the dead body of Sindura Rani. The letter was found on a table near the dead body of Sindura Rani. In a letter dated September 14, 1962 addressed to the 'Sub-Inspector' and bears the signature of the appellant in Urdu.

"I have myself 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. Sita Ram Naroola, 14th September, 1962."

"It 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 bad to break the law.

Sita Ram 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 in the absence of any material to substantiate it.The Sita Ram could not be found till September 19, on which date he surrendered him. It would be reasonable to infer from this that he was absconding till this date. The consists of the testimony of some near relatives and also of several letters written by the Sita to his wife Sindura Rani, to his mother-in-law Inder Kaur and to his brother-in-law Tilak Raj. The Sita Ram had denied that the letters were in his hand-writing. The explanation which the Sita Ram gave concerning his absence has been rightly rejected as false.

It was noticed by the Sub-Inspector Jagbir Singh, and the admissibility of this letter on the ground that it amounts to a confession to a police officer and the s. 25 of the Evidence Act renders it inadmissible in evidence. No doubt, the letter contains a confession and is also addressed to a police, officer, The at cannot make it a confession made to a police officer which is within the bay 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 circumstance quite obviously- the letter would not,, have been a confession to the police officer if the words "Sub Inspector" had not been written. Nor do we think it can become one in similar circumstances only because the words "Sub-Inspector" 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. The Sindura Rani met with a homicidal death is not in dispute. What is contended on behalf of the appellant is that there is no evidence on the basis of which his conviction could be based. Admittedly there are no eye- witnesses to the occurrence.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Kumaon 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 High Court found that the confession contained in Ex. Ka-9 is admissible and that it is an additional circumstance which can be pressed in aid in support of the charge against the appellant. 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.