Extra-judicial confession by soliloquy can be admissible, but it must be proved and corroborate a complete circumstantial chain.

A statement amounting to an admission of guilt may qualify as a confession even if uttered by the accused to himself, but its contents must be proved with cogent evidence and it should not ordinarily be the sole basis of conviction. The Court treated the accused's spoken admission as admissible extra-judicial confession and found that the surrounding circumstances formed a complete chain pointing to guilt. The confession served as corroboration of the circumstantial evidence, and the conviction and sentence for murder were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a statement uttered by an accused to himself can amount to a confession, and whether such extra-judicial confession, together with circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to sustain the conviction for murder.

Analysis: A confession need not be communicated to another person to be admissible; a statement admitting guilt, whether spoken to oneself or to others, may amount to a confession. The evidentiary value of such a confessional soliloquy is, however, limited: before it can be acted upon, the exact words must be proved with cogent evidence, and prudence requires that it should not, by itself, be made the sole basis of conviction. On the facts, the surrounding circumstances were fully established and pointed only to the guilt of the accused. The accused's spoken admission, heard by witnesses as he emerged from the house, provided corroboration to the circumstantial chain.

Conclusion: The soliloquy was admissible as an extra-judicial confession, and it corroborated the circumstantial evidence; the conviction and sentence were rightly upheld.

---