Confession to non-investigating police officer is admissible; conviction upheld on a complete circumstantial chain despite hostile witnesses.

A confession made to a State Reserve Police officer on duty was held not to attract the exclusionary rule, because the officer was not shown to have investigative powers under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the merits, the prosecution established guilt through a complete circumstantial chain: prompt apprehension at the scene, recovery of the pistol and handkerchief, forensic linkage to the killing, medical proof of homicidal death, and trustworthy portions of hostile testimony. The absence of some eyewitness support and ancillary recoveries did not create reasonable doubt. The first accused's acquittal was reversed and conviction recorded, while the second accused's acquittal was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an oral confession allegedly made by the accused to a State Reserve Police officer was hit by the rule excluding confessions made to police officers; and (ii) whether the prosecution had proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the first accused alone committed the murder on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, including recovery of the weapon and the conduct of hostile witnesses.

Issue (i): whether an oral confession allegedly made by the accused to a State Reserve Police officer was hit by the rule excluding confessions made to police officers

Analysis: The governing principle was that a confession to a police officer is inadmissible, but the exclusion does not extend to every officer performing a public security function. The statutory scheme of the Bombay State Reserve Police Force Act, 1951 showed that a reserve police officer on active duty was not invested with the powers of investigation contemplated by Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the officer in question was present on duty at the ceremony and was not an investigating officer, the confession attributed to him did not fall within the exclusionary rule. The statement in the first information report could not itself operate as substantive evidence, but the underlying confession was not barred merely because the witness was a police officer in a general sense.

Conclusion: The confession was not inadmissible on the ground that it was made to a police officer.

Issue (ii): whether the prosecution had proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the first accused alone committed the murder on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, including recovery of the weapon and the conduct of hostile witnesses

Analysis: The prosecution case rested mainly on circumstantial evidence because several witnesses turned hostile. It was reiterated that hostile testimony is not effaced from the record and may be relied on to the extent it is otherwise trustworthy. The evidence of the officers on duty, the prompt apprehension of the first accused at the scene, the immediate recovery of the pistol and handkerchief, the forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon with the killing, and the medical evidence establishing homicidal death formed a connected chain. The absence of some eyewitness support, the non-production of certain ancillary materials, and the non-recovery of an empty cartridge did not create a reasonable doubt sufficient to displace the prosecution version. The first information report and surrounding conduct also corroborated the immediate presence and capture of the first accused.

Conclusion: The prosecution proved the guilt of the first accused beyond reasonable doubt; the acquittal was set aside and conviction recorded under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.

Final Conclusion: The first accused's acquittal was reversed and he was convicted and sentenced, while the acquittal of the second accused was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession is excluded only when made to a police officer vested with investigative powers, and a conviction may rest on a complete and credible chain of circumstantial evidence even where some prosecution witnesses turn hostile.

---