Confessional statement

Conviction canbe recorded on the basis of retracted judicial confession, if the same is proved voluntary, true and is corroborated by other strong circumstances of the case

Mere denial of accused from confessional statement, in statement under Section 342,Cr.P.C., that the same is involuntary or that he has not made any such statement will not make his confessional statement inadmissible.

Though, conviction may be recorded even on a retracted confession, however it is must that such a confession shall be corroborated by independent, cogent and convincing evidence.

Conviction can be based on sole confessional statement of accused provided the same is voluntary and true and necessary precautions and formalities are adhered to.

Confessional statement is to be taken as a whole and not in piecemeal.

Confession alone is sufficient for basing conviction, if the same is found to be voluntary and true.

Complainant came forward with a different story and equally true that the accused after his arrest narrated the events in a different manner

However, in the given circumstances the Court was not absolved of the liability to test the veracity of the confessional statement, its voluntary character and the fulfillment of the legal requirements

Court could not ignore that the accused during the days of incident was juvenile and that his confessional statement was the narration of the true events which happened on the preceding night

Nothing was brought on record by the defence to suggest otherwise

Accused while recording his statement before the court of Judicial Magistrate explained in unequivocal terms that the deceased committed sodomy with him and that he was constantly tortured

Confessional statement further explained that after committing sodomy, the accused was still under the influence of the deceased and that after getting an opportunity, he succeeded in killing the deceased to take revenge

After assessing the evidence available on file, the Court reached to an inescapable conclusion that the case against the accused was proved to the hilt and that the impugned judgment did not warrant interference

Appeal being bereft of merit was dismissed.

Confessional statement could not be made basis for convicting an accused charged, but equally true that when the prosecution was in possession of the ocular account and circumstantial evidence, then in that eventuality, the confessional statement could be taken into consideration for convicting an accused charged.

Confessional statement was not recorded in an atmosphere which could persuaded that the accused by the time was composed and in comfort

Judicial Magistrate stated that the accused was produced by the local police who was given ample opportunity to think and after getting satisfaction he recorded his confessional statement

Though no major contradictions could be extracted from the witness, but the attending circumstances of the case right from arrest of the accused and his production before the court of Judicial Magistrate left no ambiguity that he was under an influence of the person who handed him over to the local police and with whom he was employed as a private servant

Even otherwise when the complainant of the case could not inspire confidence in respect of acquitted co-accused, then the manner in which the deceased lost his life could not be taken into account and even the sole confessional statement of the accused could not be taken a determining factor of his fate

Accused did not travel in an atmosphere of peace and serenity, so the disturbance of his mind and influence of his master was a factor which would go against the prosecution and as such that piece of evidence could not be taken into consideration

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed in bringing home guilt against the accused and that the impugned judgment was suffering from inherent defects which called for interference

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 16 of the judgment]

Judicial confession recorded in one case could not be relied/used in another case as each and every case had its own particular facts and circumstances.

If the confessional statement was recorded with a nominal delay after the arrest of the accused, it was not to be ruled out of considerations

If there is an unexplained delay for a considerable period after the incident, the same should not be taken into consideration without any independent corroboration.

Plea of the petitioner/accused was that a prosecution witness, on whose statement recorded under S. 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, he was implicated, had resiled from his statement and had submitted his affidavit to said effect

Validity

Record revealed that although the petitioner/accused was not directly nominated in the FIR but later on the local police had arrested him as suspect of murder of the deceased

During course of investigation , the petitioner/accused confessed his guilt stating that he had committed murder of deceased in presence of a witness; accordingly police arrested said witness and recorded his (witness') statement under S. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, wherein he had categorically implicated/ involved the petitioner in the present case; thereafter, police had discharged the said witness under S. 169 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Although the petitioner/accused had obtained an affidavit from the prosecution witness after dismissal of his bail by the Anti-Terrorism Court, whereby he resiled from his previous statement recorded under S. 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 by the police as eye-witness

However, at bail stage, evidence of witness recorded by the police could not be kept out of consideration on the basis of affidavit filed by the said witness, hence the evidentiary value of the affidavit-in-question would be considered/evaluated at the time of trial of the petitioner/accused by the Trial Court as deeper appreciation of evidence was not permissible at bail stage

At bail stage, Court was supposed to do tentative assessment of material available on record which was to be different from final appraisement and evaluation of evidence which would be recorded by the Trial Court

Tentative assessment of material, collected by the prosecution during investigation, revealed that petitioner's confessional statement under S. 21-H of the Anti-Terrorism, 1997, had been recorded by the Officer of the rank of Superintendent Police, wherein he had admitted, in presence of the witness, that he had committed murder of the deceased; and police had prepared site plan of recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of the petitioner/accused in presence of independent marginal witness as allegedly the crime weapon was thrown into river/Nallah by him after committing murder of the deceased

Chief Court observed that the petitioner/accused was, prima facie, connected with the commission of offence of murder of the deceased

Bail was declined to the petitioner/accused, in circumstances.

Accused had confessed his guilt before the police, however, it did not appeal to logic, reason or commonsense that a person who was behind the bars in an unlicensed weapons case and there was no evidence against him in a murder case would confess to an offence which carried the death penalty

Confession of accused was also not recorded before a Judicial Magistrate despite his being taken before a Judicial Magistrate for an identification parade

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Confessional statement of accused was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, who stated that accused was produced before him and after observance of usual formalities his confessional statement was recorded

Accused in his confessional statement had stated that he alone had committed murder of his wife by causing hatchet blows to her

Nothing was on record to suggest that the confessional statement of accused was recorded after putting him under duress

Magistrate had denied the suggestion that the complainant was present at the time when the confessional statement of accused was recorded

Magistrate was an independent person, his evidence was to be believed least to the extent of a voluntary confession.

Retracted judicial confession could be used against its maker provided that it had been made voluntarily and was truthful and there were only minor irregularities in its recording.

Mere delay in recording confession, in principle, was not fatal to the prosecution when the court satisfied that the same was true and voluntary

If there were circumstances which cast shadow of doubt on its genuineness then it should be excluded from consideration

Long delay in recording judicial confession would be fatal.

Conviction can be based on sole confessional statement of accused provided the same is voluntary and true and necessary precautions and formalities are adhered to.

Confessional statement should not only be true, voluntary and believable, but it should be without fear, favour or any inducement and it must be consistent and coherent to the facts and the circumstances of the prosecution case

Statement of accused becomes confession only when it is recorded in compliance of provisions of Ss.164 & 364 Cr.P.C and necessary precautions and formalities are observed.

Confessional statement was not to be accepted as a substantive piece of evidence to place conviction on it alone unless it was corroborated in each and every detail by other corroborative and circumstantial evidence.

Such delay would have no legal consequence.

Perusal of confessional statement and statement of Investigating Officer depicted that the deceased and accused had inflicted churri blows to each other due to which the accused had also sustained injuries

Accused had acted in his defense but had exceeded his right of self-defence

Appeal was partly allowed; conviction of accused under S.302(b), P.P.C., was altered into S.302(c), P.P.C., and he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years.

Retracted judicial confession might be treated sufficient to sustain a conviction, if found voluntary and true, but as a rule of prudence, the same should not be acted upon unless corroborated by some other reliable evidence.

Investigation was complete and accused was no more required to prosecution for such purpose, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would serve no useful purpose

Confessional statement was not recorded in the manner as ordained by Supreme Court and veracity of the same would be seen by Trial Court after recording of evidence of prosecution

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Conviction could be awarded to accused on sole basis of his confession, however, for that the confession must be voluntary, inculpatory, true, without an inducement, fear and coercion.

Retracted confession could be accepted provided the same was voluntary and true and also corroborated by some other reliable evidence.

Statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., when retracted by the deposer, strong corroboration and extra-ordinary care is required for awarding conviction on the basis of such statement.

Confessional statement is not to be accepted as a substantive piece of evidence and conviction cannot be placed on it alone, unless it is corroborated in each and every detail by other corroborative and circumstancial evidence.

Such a delay having not been plausibly explained by the prosecution, could not be accepted as confidence inspiring against the accused.

Whenever prosecution is relying on solitary confessional statement of an accused and there is no direct evidence then confessional statement of accused is to be accepted or rejected in whole/toto

Where direct and circumstantial evidence is available besides confessional statement of accused, in that eventuality, portion of confessional statement which supports version of prosecution would be taken into consideration while other portion of confessional statement which is inconsistent with it would not be taken into account.

Medical Officer, who examined the deceased, then injured, found firearm entry wound on right side of head, occipital region, with corresponding exit on frontal region of his head

Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem of the deceased, had also affirmed the said firearm wound of the deceased

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Confession had to be voluntary and based on true account of facts, leading to the crime and proved at the trial.

Statement of accused under S. 164, Cr.P.C. not to be recorded in the presence of other accused.

Accused, after recovery of dead body of deceased was put to trial on the basis of his confessional statement made before Magistrate

Accused retracted his confession during his examination under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Confessional statement was neither true nor was voluntary and such type of confession could not be used for awarding conviction especially in a capital case without the strongest of corroboration which was lacking

Piece of evidence which was not put to accused in statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. could not be used against him nor on such point could the case be remanded to Trial Court for recording statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. afresh so that the prosecution could fill in the lacunas in its case

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Accused recorded his confessional statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. wherein he had admitted that he had committed the murder of his mother

Nothing was available on record that such confessional statement of the accused-appellant was the result of any pressure or coercion

Record showed that confessional statement was recorded in proper manner after observing all legal formalities by the Judicial Magistrate

Mere retraction from such confession was not sufficient to discard same from consideration

Medical Officer had also supported the injuries on the person of deceased to have been caused with sharp cutting weapons as was confessed by the accused-appellant

Medical evidence was consistent with judicial confession as made by the accused-appellant

Confessional statement recorded without waste of time after observing all legal formalities appeared as voluntarily, truthful and confidence inspiring, which required no further corroboration

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Retracted confession before a Magistrate can be the basis of convicting in a capital case however it must be; (a) voluntary i.e. without threat or inducement; (b) its object must be to state the truth; assistance for which can be ascertained from (i) whether the confession appears truthful within the context of prosecution case and (ii) whether there is any other evidence on record which tends to corroborate truthfulness of the confession, and (c) only minor irregularities regarding the rules concerning the recording of judicial confession can be permitted as determined on a case to case basis the main criteria being that such irregularities have not adversely affected the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession

Slight delay in recording such confession after arrest of accused does not affect its legality and ability of Court to rely on it.

Petitioner sought confessional statement adjudged through Constitutional petition in connection with criminal case wherein he was convicted and even appeal was declined

Validity

Status of such piece of evidence could not be sought to be adjudged in Constitutional petition.

Magistrate while recording confessional statement of accused failed to discharge his duty in accordance with law and did not put relevant questions to accused to ascertain that the confession was voluntarily, true and without any inducement

Such confession lost its evidentiary value

High Court extended benefit of doubt to accused, set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted him of the charge

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Voluntary and true confession required no corroboration and was sufficient for conviction, but as a rule of procedure, the court was required to seek corroboration of the same on material particulars.

Delay in recording confession could not always be treated as fatal if the said lapse had not in any way adversely affected the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession.

Delay in recording confessional statement by itself was not sufficient to discard the same.

If no such corroboration was available, the confessional statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., could not be made sole basis of conviction.

Confessional statement of accused recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate showed that the alleged occurrence took place on 30.6.2015 and the accused was arrested on 16.7.2015

Accused was produced before Judicial Magistrate on 30.7.2015 after 14th day of his arrest for recording his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. but such delay had not been explained

Said unexplained delay in recording of the confessional statement of the accused had lost its evidentiary value.

In order to ascertain the truthfulness of confession, it must be visualized and examined in juxtaposition with the other evidence of the prosecution

Conviction could be based on sole confession, however, for that the confession must be voluntary, true, without any inducement, fear and coercion.

Confessional statement recorded with the delay of four days could not be made basis for conviction of the accused.

Greater duty/responsibility had been casted upon the Magistrate recording confession to be satisfied that confession was voluntarily made and to that end, he must make an inquiry before recording the confession.

Before recording a conviction on a confessional statement by the court, its true and voluntary character must be satisfied besides some other independent piece of direct, substantial and circumstantial evidence which corroborates such recording.

Record showed that accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate at 1.30 p.m. for recording his confessional statement

Statement of Judicial Magistrate showed that only thirty minutes time was given to the accused to think over his confession

However, the confessional statement of the accused was concluded at 1.45 p.m.

Said circumstances showed that accused was not given proper time nor any satisfactory measures were adopted prior to recording the confession of the accused and the same was recorded in cursory manner

Confessional story of the accused did not appear to be true and voluntary, in circumstances.

If the confessional statement was to be believed for conviction, such confessional statement was to be corroborated with other evidence.

Any lapse by Magistrate in recording the confession could not always be treated as fatal to the evidentiary value of confession when the court was satisfied that lapse on the part of the Magistrate had not in any way adversely affected the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession.

Confessional statement was a corroboratory piece of evidence and it was to be read together with other pieces of evidence like ocular testimony, medical evidence and circumstantial evidence and not in isolation.

High Court observed that during transit of the accused by the police from and to the Trial Court from the prison, on each "Paishi" no threat or pressure should be applied by the escorting police guard or incharge thereof

Actual facts were to be considered, which induced the accused to confess after facing trial, during which he pleaded innocence all the way

Court recording the confession had to ensure that the mental capacity of the accused was not diminished due to any illness and if some indication of abnormality was suspected by the court, it would be better to refer the accused to the Standing Medical Board to ascertain the true cause thereof

At the time of recording the confession, the same safeguards and precautions be adopted, by directing the Public Prosecutor, the complainant's counsel, the Naib Court and all other officials to leave the Court

If needed, the counsel who represented the accused, might be given an opportunity to be present inside the court during the whole process, if the accused person, on asking by the Trial Court, so demanded

Handcuffs of the accused be removed and he be provided a chair on the dais

Sometime be given to accused to think over the making of the confession and in that regard particular questions be put to him as to why he was making the confession when he had already pleaded innocence and claimed trial at the time the formal charge was framed

Trial Court would explain to the accused that, in case of making confession, he had to face a capital sentence in a murder case or any offence punishable with death

Entire record of all the questions and answers recorded, was to be properly maintained and thereafter, a proper certificate be appended thereto, showing the satisfaction of the Court that the accused person was not mentally sick and he was making the confession voluntarily, based on true facts and that, there was no other compelling reason behind that

If the Trial Court failed to observe such procedure and requirements then a statement made by an accused could not be treated as confession and, at best, it could only be treated as an admission

Such an admission could only be treated as a relevant fact and not a proof by itself.