Case Name : Sahoo vs State of UP
Case Reference: (1965) 3 SCR 86 :
Neutral Citation:
Case Number: Crl A 248/1964
Court: Supreme Court
Bench: 03
Coram: K Subba Rao, C Shah, RS Bachawat
Date: 16.02.1965
In the case of circumstantial evidence, all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstance should be of a conclusive nature and the tendency must be that it excludes other hypotheses other than the one proposed to be proved. (Page 88, B)
Soliloquy of an accused admitting his guilt is not an extra judicial confession (Page 89, C-G) A statement, whether communicated or not, admitting guilt, is a confession of guilt (Page 90, A) A confessional soliloquy is a direct piece of evidence (Page 90, B) This evidence must be established by cogent evidence
A statement under 157 Evidence Act means “something that is stated”; and element of communication is not necessary (Page 89, E) Refer also:
Judgment name
See also: Evidence, Section 25 Evidence, Section 26 Evidence - Section 27 Evidence, Section 28 Evidence - Section 29 Evidence - Section 30 Evidence - Section 157 IPC - Section 302