R. KUPPUSAMYversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBEILIGAI

                         [2013] 4 S.C.R. 136


A                       R. KUPPUSAMY
                              v.
      STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMBEILIGAI
              (Criminal Appeal No.1706 of 2008)
                        FEBRUARY 19, 2013
B
                 [T.S. THAKUR AND SUDHANSU
                   JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Life imprisonment
C - Homicidal death of 10 month old girl child due to drowning
   - Prosecution case that the child had been thrown into the well
   by her father (appellant) as there were problems between the
   appellant and his parents regarding the child being unlucky
   for the family - Conviction of appellant by Courts below on
D basis of extra-judicial confessional statement made by him
   before PW1 - Justification of - Held: Justified - Extra judicial
   confessional statement attributed to appellant found to be
   voluntary, truthful and unaffected by any inducement that
   could render it unreliable or unworthy of credence - It was
E made by appellant to PW1 almost immediately after
  commission of the crime - Corroboration by medical
  evidence and deposition of other witnesses - Deposition of
  PW1 inspires confidence in the absence of any material
  deficiency in the same either in terms of what has been
F recorded by him or the procedure that he followed while doing
  so - More importantly, no suggestion that PW1 had any
  animosity or other reason which would impel him to go so far
  as to involve the appellant in a case of murder - Courts below
  correctly appreciated the deposition of PW1 and found him
  to be reliable.
G
        Evidence - Extra judicial confession - Appreciation of -
  Held: An extra judicial confession is capable of sustaining a
  conviction provided the same is not made under any
  inducement, is voluntary and truthful - Whether or not these
H                                136         ----
  R. KUPPUSAMY v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 137
              POLICE, AMBEILIGAI
 attributes of an extra judicial confession are satisfied in a A
 given case will, however, depend upon the facts and
 circumstances of each case -It is eventually the satisfaction
 of the Court as to the reliability of the confession, keeping in
  view the circumstances in which the same is made, the person
_ to whom it is alleged to have been made and the B
  corroboration, if any, available as to the truth of such a
  confession that will determine whether the extra judicial
  confession ought to be made a basis for holding the accused
  guilty.

      Evidence - Medical evidence - Appreciation of - On
                                                                  c
 facts, the medical evidence adduced suggests that death of
 the deceased child was caused by drowning - Congestion of
 his lungs implies presence of excess fluids in the lungs, a
 sign suggesting that the child would have inhaled excess fluid
 while in water - Presence of watery fluid even in stomach of     0
 the deceased an important sign of death by drowning - It is
 almost impossible for water to get into the stomach, if a body
 is submerged after death - Absence of any other marks on
 the body of the child also supports the prosecution case that
 the child had indeed died of drowning.                           E
     The prosecution case was that the appellant had
 murdered his ten month old daughter by throwing her in
 a well (resulting in the child's death by drowning}, as
 there were problems between the appellant and his                F
 parents regarding the child being unlucky for the family.
 The appellant had allegedly made an extra-judicial
 confession before PW1, the Village Administrative Officer
 (VAO). Placing reliance upon the said extra-judicial
 confession, the Courts below convicted the appellant             G
 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life
 imprisonment.

     In the instant appeal, the conviction of the appellant
  was challenged on grounds 1) that making of the
  confessional statement was, in the facts and                    H
    138       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2013] 4 S.C.R.

A circumstances of the case, not only improbable but
  wholly unsupported and uncorroborated by any
  independent evidence; and 2) that extra judicial
  confession by its ve:ry nature is a wea'k type of evidence
  which ought to be corroborated by independent evidence
B in order to support a conviction of the maker of the
  confession, and no such corroboration was forthcoming
  in the instant case.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

C      HELD: 1. An extra judicial confession is capable of
  sustaining a conviction provided the same is not made
  under any inducement, is-voluntary and truthful. Whether
  or not these attributes of an extra judicial confession are
                 a
  satisfied in given case will, however, depend upon the
D facts and circumstances of each case. It is eventually the
  satisfaction of the Court as to the reliability of the
  confession, keeping in view the circumstances in which
  the same is made, the person to whom it is alleged to
  have been made and the corroboration, if any, available
E as to the truth of such a confession that will determine
  whether the extra judicial confession ought to be made
  a basis for holding the accused guilty. [Para 7] [145-C-E]

       Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205:
  2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 408; Sahadevan and Anr. v. State of
F Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403; Balbir Singh and Anr. v. State
  of Punjab 1996 (SCC) Crl. 1158 and Jaspal Singh @ Pali v.
  State of Punjab (1997) 1 SCC 510 - relied on.
       2.1. In the case at hand the trial Court as also the first
G Appellate Court have both found the extra judicial
  confession attributed to the appellant to be voluntary,
  truthful and unaffected by any inducement that could
  render it unreliable or unworthy of credence. The·
  conclusion drawn by the Courts below is not vitiated by
H any error of fact or law. The confessional statement in the
R. KUPPUSAMY v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 139
                POLICE, AMBEILIGAI
case at hand has been made by the appellant almost A
immediately after the commission of the crime. The
appellant is alleged to have gone over to PW-1, Village
Administrative Officer, and narrated to the witness the
genesis of the incident leading to his throwing his baby
daughter into the well at a short distance from his house. B
PW-1 recorded the confessional statement of the
appellant, which was marked Exh. P-1 at the trial, and got
the same signed from the appellant and took the appellant
with him to the jurisdictional police station. [Para 8] [145-
F-H; 146-A-C]
                                                             c
    2.2. The deposition of PW-1 inspires confidence in
the absence of any material deficiency in the same either
in terms of what has been recorded by him or the
procedure that he followed while doing so. More
importantly, there is no suggestion that this witness had    o
any animosity or other reason which would impel him to
go so far as to involve the appellant in a case of murder.
Courts below have correctly appreciated the deposition
of this witness and found him to be reliable. [Para 1O]
[146-H; 147-A-B]                                             E
     3. The statement is corroborated by medical
evidence and the deposition of other witnesses. The
medical evidence adduced in the case suggests that the
death of the deceased child was homicidal and that the
same was caused by drowning. The deposition of the F
doctor PW-10 is clear on this aspect. The doctor has
reported the lungs of the deceased to be congested.
Congestion of lungs implies presence of excess fluids' in
the lungs, a sign suggesting that the child would have
inhaled excess fluid while in water. In addition, there is a G'
finding by the doctor that there was 200 Mls. of watery
fluid even in the stomach of the deceased. According to
Modi's Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the presence in
the stomach of a certain quantify of water is regarded as
an important sign of death by drowning. It i.s almost H
    140       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A impossible for water to get into the stomach, if a body is
  submerged after death. All this suggests that the death
  was caused by taking in water which one usually does
  while struggling in a drowning situation. Absence of any
  other marks on the body of the child also supports the
8 prosecution case that the deceased had indeed died of
  drowning. The confessional statement thus gets
  sufficient corroboration as to the cause of the death of
  the child. That apart the depositions of other witnesses
  examined before the trial Court also lend corroboration
C to the prosecution version. [Paras 11, 12 and 13] [147-C-
  D, E-H; 148-A-B]
          Modi's Jurisprudence and Toxicology - referred to.
       4. It is thus manifest that there is considerable
  corroborative evidence on record to support the extra
D judicial confessional statement of the appellant in which
  the appellant has referred to some kind of suspicion and
  disagreement between him and his parents regarding the
  chiid because of which he threw the child into the well. It
  is not one of those cases where the confessional
E statement is made to a person whose credibility is
  suspected nor is it a case where there is no corroboration
  forthcoming from other evidence on record. On both
  counts the view taken by the Courts below appears to be
  perfectly justified. The same, therefore, warrants no
  interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para
F 18] [150-A-C]
                         Case Law Reference:
       2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 408         relied on     Para 5

G      (2012) s sec 403                relied on     Para 5, 6
       1996 (SCC) Crl. 1158            relied on     Para 6
              -

       (1991) 1 sec 510                relied on     Para 6
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
H No. 1706 of 2008.
R. KUPPUSAMY v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 141
            POLICE, AMBEILIGAI
    From the Judgment & Order dated 26.02.2007 of the High         A
Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.
224 of 2005.
   Mahalakshmi Pavani, G. Balaji, Mukesh Kumar Singh (for
Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.) for the Appellant.
                                                                   B
    M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha Kumaran for the Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. The short question that falls for
determination in this appeal by special leave is whether the C
Courts below were justified in convicting the appellant for the
offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and in
awarding imprisonment for life to him on the basis of an extra-
judicial confession that he is alleged to have made before the
Village Administrative Officer, Veriappur, (VAO for short). The
extra judicial confession was, according to the prosecution, D
reduced to writing by the VAO and found sufficient by the trial
Court as also by the High Court to hold the appellant guilty of
having committed the offence with which he was charged. That
finding and the consequent orders recorded by the Courts
below have been assailed by learned counsel for the appellant E
who argued that the making of the confessional statement was,
 in the facts and circumstances of the case, not only improbable
 but wholly unsupported and uncorroborated by any independent
evidence. Relying upon several decisions of this Court, it was
argued that the extra judicial confession was by its very nature F
a weak type of evidence which ought to be corroborated by
 independent evidence in order to support a conviction of the
maker of the confession. No such corroboration was, according
to Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani forthcoming in the instant case,
which rendered the conviction and order of sentence passed G
by the Courts below unsustainable in law.
    2. Before we refer to the evidence adduced by the
prosecution at the trial in support of the charge framed against
the appellant we may briefly recapitulate the factual matrix in
which the offence is alleged to have been committed.               H
      142        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R.


  A   According to the prosecution the appellant is a resident of
       Veriappur village of Annamalaiputhur village within the police
       station limits of Oddanchatram. He got married to one Yuvarani
       nearly two years before the incident. Within about 10 months
       of the marriage, the couple was blessed with a female child
  B whom they named Savitha. The prosecution case is that the
       accused-appellant had developed som~ suspicion about the
       birth of the child though it is not very clearwhether the suspicion
      was about the paternity of the child or t~e child being unlucky
      for the family. Be that as it may, around the time the incident
  c    occurred the appellant is said to have. visited his village to
      perform the mundan ceremony of the child who was just about
       10 months old. His parents were not, h6wever, much excited
      about the mundan ceremony to be followed by the feast. They
      are alleged to have told the appellant that ever -since the child
  0 _ was born, the family was facing probl~ms. The prosecution
      version further is that since the appellant had already developed
      a suspicion about the child, he at about 11 ;00 a.m. on 18th
      March, 2005 picked up the child and threw her in a well resulting
      in the child's death by drowning. After throwing the ·child into
      the well the appellant is alleged-to have gone to PW-5 Sakthivel,
  E Vice President of Veripur Panchayat Board, and told him that
      he had thrown his daughter into the well. PW-5 Sakthivel is said
     to have advised the appellant to go to PW-1 S.K. Natarajan,
     Village Administrative Officer of Veriappur. The appellant
     accordingly went to PW:-1 S.K. Natarajan and narrated the
- F incident to him. PW-1 S.K. Natarajan is alleged to have
     recorded the 'statement made by the appellant and taken the
     appellant along with. him to the police station where the former
     lodged the first information report regarding the incident and
     produced the extra judicial ~onfession made by the appellant
  G before the police.

       · 3. A case was in . the ·above backdrop ·registered in the
    police station at Aniblikkai , under Section_ 302 IPC and
    investigation started in the course whereof the dead body of
  H the child was subjected to post-mortem which revealed that the


                       .,
R. KUPPUSAMY v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 143
      POLICE, AMBEILIGAI [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
child had died because of drowning. A charge sheet was A
eventually laid by the police against the appellant for committing
the murder of his daughter to which charge the appellant
pleaded not guilty resulting in his trial before the Court of
Sessions at Dindigul.
                                                                   B
      4. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 11
witnesses in support of its case. The appellant did not choose
to lead any evidence in his defence but pleaded innocence and
false implication in the statement made by him under Section
313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court eventually came to the conclusion C
that the charge framed against the appellant stood proved on
 the basis of the extra judicial confession made by him before
 PW-1 S.K. Natarajan, Village Administrative Officer of
 Veriappur. The Court accordingly pronounced him guilty and
 sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the
 order passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal D
 Appeal No.224 of 2005 before the High Court of Madras. The
 High Court concurred with the view taken by the trial Court and
 dismissed the appeal. In the process, the High Court affirmed
 the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant had
  indeed made an extra judicial confession which was, according E
 to the High Court, reliable and provided a safe basis for the
  Court to hold him guilty. The present appeal assails the
  correctness of the aforementioned judgments and orders as
  already noticed above.
                                                                  F
     5. It is common ground that there is no eye witness to the
occurrence leading to the death of the unfortunate female child
who was just about ten months old. The prosecution case rests
entirely on the extra judicial confession attributed to the
appellant which has been found by the trial Court as also the     G
High Court to be voluntary and truthful. That a truthful extra
judicial confession made voluntarily and without any inducement
can be made a basis for recording a conviction against the
person making the confessions was not disputed before us at
 the hearing. What was argued by Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani,          H
    144       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   counsel appearing for the appellant, was that an extra judicial
    confession being in its very nature an evidence of a weak type,
    the Courts would adopt a cautious approach while dealing with
    such evidence and record a conviction only if the extra judicial
    confession is, apart from being found truthful and voluntary, also
B   corroborated by other evidence. There was, according to the
    learned counsel, no such corroboration forthcoming in the
    present case which according to her was sufficient by itself to
    justify rejection of the confessional statement as a piece of
    evidence against the appellant. Reliance, in support of the
c   contention urged by the learned counsel, was placed upon the
    decisions of this Court in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan
    (2001) 2 SCC 205 and Sahadevan and Anr. v. State of Tamil
    Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403. In Gura Singh's case (supra) a two-
    Judge Bench of this Court was also dealing with an extra
0   judicial confession and the question whether the same could
     be made a basis for recording the conviction against the
     accused. This Court held that despite the inherent weakness
     of an extra judicial confession as a piece of evidence, the same
     cannot be ignored if it is otherwise shown to be voluntary and
E    truthful. This Court also held that extra judicial confession cannot
     always be termed as tainted evidence and that corroboration
    of such evidence is required only as a measure of abundant
    caution. If the Court found the witness to whom confession was
    made to be trustworthy and that the confession was true and
    voluntary, a conviction can be founded on such evidence alone.
F   More importantly, the Court declared that Courts cannot start
    with the presumption that extra judicial confession is always
    suspect or a weak type of evidence but it would depend on the
    nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is
    made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak about
G   such a confession and whether the confession is voluntary and
    truthful.

      6. In Sahadevan's case (supra) a two-Judge Bench of this
  Court comprehensively reviewed the case law on the subject
H and concluded that an extra judicial confession is an admissible
   R. KUPPUSAMY v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 145
         POLICE, AMBEILIGAI [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
   piece of evidence capable of supporting the conviction of an· A
   accused provided the same is made voluntarily and is
   otherwise found to be truthful. This Court also reiterated the
   principle that if an extra judicial confession is supported by a
   chain of cogent circumstances and is corroborated by other
 , evidence, it acquires credibility. To the same effect are the B
   decisions of this Court in Balbir Singh and Anr. v. State of
   Punjab 1996 (SCC) Crl. 1158 and Jaspal Singh @ Pali v.
   State of Punjab (1997) 1 SCC 510.

        7. It is unnecessary, in the light of above pronouncements, C
  to embark upon any further review of the decisions of this Court
  on tbe subject. The legal position is fairly well-settled that an
  extra judicial confession is capable of sustaining a conviction
  provided the same is not made under any inducement, is
  voluntary and truthful. Whether or not these attributes of an extra
  judicial confession are satisfied in a giVen case will, however, D
  depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is
  eventually the satisfaction of the Court as to the reliability of the
  confession, keeping in view the circumstances in which the
  same is made, the person to whom it is alleged to have been
  made and the corroboration, if any, available as to the truth of E
· such a confession that will determine whether the extra judicial
   confession ought to be made a basis for holding the accused
  guilty.

        8. In the case at hand the trial Court as also the first         F
  Appellate Court have both found the extra judicial confession
  attributed to the appellant to be voluntary, truthful and unaffected
  by any inducement that could render it unreliable or unworthy
  of credence. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at
  considerable length and having gone through the evidence               G
  adduced at the trial, we are of the view that the conclusion
  drawn by the Courts below is not vitiated by any error of fact or
  law. The confessional statement in the case at hand has been
  made by the appellant almost immediately after the commission
  of the crime. The appellant is alleged to have gone over to PW-
                                                                         H
    146       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A 1 S.K. Natarajan, Village Administrative Officer, who was the
  concerned Village Administrative Officer of Veriappur and
  narrated to the witness the genesis of the incident leading to
  his throwing baby Savitha into the well at a short distance from
  his house. PW-1 S.K. Natarajan recorded the confessional
B statement of the appellant, which was marked Exh. P-1 at the
  trial, and got the same signed from the appellant and took the
  appellant with him to the jurisdictional police station. At the
  police station PW-1 S.K. Natarajan got the first information
  report regarding the incident registered as Crime No.61/05
c setting legal process into motion in the course whereof
  Investigating Officer was taken to the well by the appellant in
  which he had thrown the child. At the well, the Inspector of police
  prepared the Mahazar which was signed by the witness
  including PW-1 S.K. Natarajan himself and took charge of the
  dead body of the child which had, by that time, been brought
0
  out of the well. A towel lying about 20 ft. from the well was also
  seized.

       9. PW-1 S.K. Natarajan was cross-examined at length but
  there is nothing in the cross-examination that could possibly
E discredit his deposition. No enmity has ever existed between
  the witness and the appellant to suggest a false implication of
  the appellant. The only significant suggestion made in the course
  of the cross-examination, is that the confessional statement was
  not recorded by the witness in his office as stated by him but
F at the police station and in the presence of the sub-inspector
  concerned. This suggestion has been denied by the witness
  including the suggestion that the statement ought to have been
  recorded in the prescribed form under the rules and the reason
  why it was not so recorded was because the statement had
G been put in black and white at the police station using an
  ordinary white paper. The witness stated that the statement was
  recorded on a plain paper because the. prescribed forms were
  not readily available in his office.

          10. The deposition of PW-1 S.K. Natarajan inspires
H
R. KUPPUSAMY v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 147
      POLICE, AMBEILIGAI [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
confidence in the absence of any material deficiency in the A
same either in terms of what has been recorded by him or the
procedure that he followed while doing so. More importantly,
there is no suggestion that this witness had any animosity or
other reason which would impel him to go so far as to involve
the appellant in a case of murder: Courts below have, in our B
opinion, correctly appreciated the deposition of this witness and
found him to be reliable. The concurrent finding of fact returned
by the two Courts, has not, in our opinion caused any
miscarriage of justice to warrant our taking a different view.

      11. Coming to the question whether the statement was             C
corroborated by other evidence, we find that such corroboration
is indeed forthcoming in the form of medical evidence and the
deposition of other witnesses. The medical evidence adduced
in the case suggests that the death of the deceased child was
ho.micidal and that the same was caused by drowning. The               D
deposition of PW-10 Dr. A. Muthusamy, in our opinion, is clear
on this aspect, although it was vehemently contended by Ms.
Mahalakshmi Pavani, that the doctor had not mentioned the
presence of water in the lungs of the child which, according to
her, showed that the story of the child dying by drowning was          E
unsupported by medical evidence. The fact, however, remains
that the doctor has reported the lungs of the deceased to be
congested. Congestion of lungs implies presence of excess
fluids in the lungs, a sign suggesting that the child would have
inhaled excess fluid while in water. In addition, there is a finding   F
by the doctor that there was 200 MLs. of watery fluid even in
the stomach of the deceased.· According to Modi's
Jurisprudence and Toxicology, the presence in the stomach
of a certain quantity of water is regarded as an important sign
of death by drowning. It is almost impossible for water to get         G
 into the stomach, if a body is submerged after death.

     12. All this suggests that the death was caused by taking
in water which one usually does while struggling in a drowning
situation. Absence of any other marks on the body of the child         H
    148       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A   also supports the prosecution case that the deceased had
    indeed died of drowning. The confessional statement thus gets
    sufficient corroboration as to the cause of the death of the child.

        13. That apart the depositions of other witnesses examined
  before the trial Court also lend corroboration to the prosecution
8
  version. For instance PW-2 Kanakaran deposed that he was
  plucking chilly in his field near the field of the appellant on the
  fateful day. At around 12.00 noon the witness heard someone
  crying at Chelimedu. The witness and other persons in the
  vicinity rushed and looked into the well only to find the dead
C body of the child floating. The witness descended into the well
  and picked up the child and brought her out. The child was dead.
  The wife of the appellant was crying and saying that the child
  had been thrown into the well and that the appellant had killed
  her.
D
         14. In cross-examination the witness expressed ignorance
   about any 'mundan' ceremony or arrangements for the same
   having been made by the appellant and that he had no invitation
 · for any such ceremony. The wife of the appellant was, according
E to the witness, saying that the appellant 'suspected the birth'
   of the child meaning thereby that the appellant was either
   suspicious about the paternity of the child or her being unlucky
   for the family.

       15. To the same effect is the statement of PW-3
F Palanisamy according to whom the wife of the appellant was
  crying aloud. Persons from the nearby fields came running to
  the well and so did this witness. The appellant's wife was heard
  saying that the child had been killed. Kanakaran PW-2 climbed
  down the well and brought the body of the child out and kept
G the same on the western side of the well. Inspector of police
  reached in due course and interrogated him.
       16. PW-4 Manoharan was declared hostile but was cross-
  examined and confronted with the statement made before the
H police regarding the appellant having been seen by him
 R. KUPPUSAMY v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 149
       POLICE, AMBEILIGAI [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
walking away from the place of occurrence under tension. PW-          A
5 Sakthivel, President of Veripur Panchayat Board, stated that
the appellant had come to him and told him that the child had
fallen into the well and asked him as to what he should do in
the matter. He had told him to go to Maniakarar. This witness
was also declared hostile and confronted with the statement           B
made before the police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

        17. Statement of PW-6 Palaniammal who happened to be
 the grandmother of the deceased child is also significant. This
 witness stated that the child was born 10 months after the
 marriage of the appellant. The wife of the appellant had stayed C
 on with her parents' for seven months after the child was born.
 She was finally brought to her matrimonial house by the witness
 and the appellant. Three months later, on 18th March, 2005 the
·appellant returned from Pondicherry where he worked and told
 her that he had come for performing the 'mundan' ceremony D
 of his daughter and asked the witness why she was going to
 the field when such a ceremony was being held. The witness
 stated that if the ceremony had to be organised he should have
  informed them ten daY.S earlier so that they could have arranged
 to perform the ceremony in a grand manner. The witness told E
  him that since she had engaged two persons for picking
 groundnuts, he should take his father and perform the mundan.
  In due course, the father of the appellant also reached the field
 and while picking up groundnuts along with the labourers, they
  received the information that the child was missing. They rushed F
  back only to find the child floating in the well. The presence of
  the appellant in the village on the date of the occurrence is
 established by the deposition of this witness and so is the fact
  that the parents of the appellant were not much concerned or
  happy to join the proposed mundan ceremony. The prosecution G
  case, it is important to note, is that ever since the child's birth,
  there were problems between the appellant and his parents
   regarding the child being unlucky for the family which resulted
   in the unfortunate incident of the appellant throwing the child into
   the well.                                                            H
                                                                 . -
    150        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013) 4 S.C.R.


A        18. It is manifest from the above that there is considerable
    corroborative evidence on record to support the extra judicial
    co~fessional statement of the appellant in which the appellant
    has referred to some kind of suspicion and disagreement
    between him and his parents regarding the child because of
s   which he threw the child into the well. Suffice it to say that it is
    not one of those cases where the confessional statement is
    made to a person whose credibility is suspected nor is it a
    case where there is no corroboration forthcoming from other
    evidence on record. On both counts the view taken by the
c   Courts below appears to us to be perfectly justified. The same,
    therefore, warrants no interference from us under Article 136
    of the Constitution.
          19. In the result this appeal fails and.is hereby dismissed.

D B.B.B.                                          Appeal dismissed.