Information recorded u/s.27 of Evidence Act by a Police Officer which is confessional in nature, is not admissible in evidence

The learned trial court arrived at a conclusion of guilt of the accused appellant primarily on the basis of three circumstances. The first conclusion of the trial court was based on the so-called evidence of disclosure i.e., the accused gave an information to the I.O. under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and led him to the place where he had allegedly strangled Smt. Mohini. In this regard, it is a settled proposition of law that such part of information of the accused recorded by a Police Officer which is confessional in nature, cannot be proved and as a consequence, is not admissible in evidence.

Manifestly, the inculpating part of the information (Ex.P/14) wherein, the accused allegedly admitted to have killed Smt. Mohini is totally inadmissible because the same would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It may be stated here that the Site Inspection Plan (Ex.P/8) which the I.O. prepared on the basis of the information provided by the accused, records that a cot was lying at point 'X' in a room where Sheshkaran Dan admitted to have murdered his wife Smt. Mohini. Manifestly, the confession of the accused as is recorded in this document, is totally inadmissible and has to be excluded from consideration. The remaining part of the document, simply records presence of a cot at mark 'X' in the room. Obviously, when the husband and wife were living together in the house, presence of a cot in their room was but natural. Therefore, the conclusion drawn by the trial court in the impugned Judgment that the disclosure made by the accused pointing out the cot where he allegedly murdered Smt. Mohini was incriminating in nature, is absolutely baseless and frivolous.[Para No.9]

Bequeath of disproportionate share in Will does not make the Will suspicious or unnatural

Thus, from the tenor of the Will read with the document dated 30 September, 2000, it appears that Pravin had equal love and affection for Ashok and Dipti. However, Pravin was of the opinion that he had spent sufficient sums of money on Dipti to give her a comfortable life and hence he did not think it necessary to leave much of his properties to his daughter. However, it is not that Dipti was totally deprived by Pravin in the Will. As noted, 9% Relief Bonds with face value of Rs.31,00,000/- and Maturity Value of over Rs.48,00,000/- were left for Dipti. It has also come out from the evidence on record that Dipti and her husband are both well established in U.S.A. and between the two of them, they earn over 1 million U.S. dollars per year. This factor is also likely to have played in the mind of the testator in deciding that it was not necessary to leave much for Dipti who was financially more than secure. Just because the bequests in favour of the testator's two children are not equal and may even be disproportionate, the same in my view, per se would not amount to a suspicious circumstance or make the Will unnatural. A Will is generally made when the testator desires to alter the natural course of succession. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Ramabai Padmakar Patil (Dead) v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande (supra), a Will is executed to alter the natural mode of succession and by the very nature of things it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of a natural heir. If a person intends his property to pass equally to his natural heirs there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that the propounder of a Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that the natural heirs or some of them have been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance.[Para No.31]

    In S. Sundaresa Pai vs. Sumangala. T. Pai (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at Paragraph 7 of the judgment inter alia as follows:

"The uneven distribution of assets amongst children, by itself, cannot be taken as a circumstance causing suspicion surrounding the execution of the will. One son was given bulk of immovable properties; another none; another half share in one immovable property; other half being given to the plaintiff and another daughter and husband were given nothing. It is also not in dispute that some properties were given in gift to the plaintiff by her mother during her lifetime. There was nothing unnatural."[Para No.51]