Correct option is C
In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that a confession could be made in the form of a
conversation with oneself and that it need not be communicated to another person to be relevant. The accused, in this case, was overheard muttering to himself after committing a murder, which was considered a form of confession even though it was not directly communicated to any other person.
Information Booster
In
Sahoo v. State of U.P. (1966), the accused was charged with the murder of his daughter-in-law. After committing the crime, the accused was seen muttering to himself that he had killed her because of an ongoing dispute. The court held that this statement, though made in a monologue to himself, was a relevant confession under the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, because it indicated his acknowledgment of guilt.
Key Points:
1.
Self-conversation as Confession: A confession does not need to be communicated to a third party; it can be a statement made to oneself, as long as it reflects acknowledgment of guilt.
2.
Admissibility: The Court ruled that such mutterings, if overheard and related to the crime, could be considered admissible evidence under the
Indian Evidence Act, as it shows the mental state of the accused and his admission of the crime.
Additional Knowledge
(a) Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan
This case involved the principles of a voluntary confession and the standard required for a valid confession under police custody, but it did not focus on the issue of self-conversation.
(b) Boota Singh v. State of Punjab
This case dealt with issues related to the retraction of confessions, particularly in the context of custodial interrogation, and the voluntariness of confessions made to the police.
