Retracted Confession

Retracted confession, especially when it stands as the sole basis for conviction, raises significant legal, ethical and practical concerns

When coupled with dismissal of oral evidence furnished by complainant, relying on a retracted confession to secure a conviction becomes even more precarious.

Accused were charged for committing murder of sister-in-law of the accused and injuring the stranger, who was with the deceased lady at the relevant time

In the present case, lady eye-witness had resiled from her earlier statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.

Said witness had mainly shifted the blame of commission of the offence to absconding accused i.e. her brother in her statement recorded before the Court

Said witness had though been declared a hostile witness and allowed to be cross-examined but nothing beneficial to the case of prosecution could be extracted from her mouth

Even if testimony of that witness was considered, same would make the case of prosecution a case of two versions lying poles apart from each other

Both the versions, emerging from prosecution evidence itself, would be difficult to be reconciled together

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Retracted confession, if corroborated by independent evidence of reliable nature, could be made basis for conviction on a capital charge, subject to thorough judicial scrutiny.

Held; no direct evidence of the crime in question was available and the prosecution case was structured upon circumstantial pieces of evidence i.e. disclosures of accused persons along with recovery of crime weapon, corroborated by positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory and judicial confession of accused persons recorded by Judicial Magistrate under S. 164, Cr.P.C.

Testimony of Judicial Magistrate revealed that confessional statements of accused persons were voluntary and true and the procedural defect, if any, in recording the statements stood removed by the question put by the Magistrate to the accused to the effect that they were not bound to make any statement and if a confessional statement was made by them, the same could be used against them as evidence

Accused did not directly or indirectly take the plea before the Trial Court at any stage that the confessions were involuntary

Accused, though, had retracted their confessions, but the same could be relied upon, because the events disclosed by them for the purpose of commission of crime in their confessional statements including the manner adopted by them was fully corroborated by prosecution evidence available on record

Motive for killing the deceased indicated that their confessions were voluntary and true and the same could not be discarded for the sole reason of having been recorded after six/seven days in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

Crime weapon was recovered in pursuance of the disclosures made by the accused persons and the pistol along with the empties secured from the place of occurrence were sent for the report of Ballistic Expert

Report of Ballistic Expert showed that the crime empties were fired from the same pistol

Circumstances highlighted excluded every hypothesis of the innocence of accused persons and thus the Trial Court had rightly relied upon circumstantial evidence

No space existed to entertain any hypothesis of innocence, guilty verdict called for no interference

High Court, while attending to the sentence of death passed against one of the accused, observed that though all the other formalities required by the law vis-a-vis recording confessional statements under S. 164, Cr.P.C. were duly complied with, yet the same were recorded after a delay of six/seven days

Such delay was an irregularity not vitiating the confessional statement itself but put the court to caution

Offence in question was seemingly committed by the accused under the influence of absconding co-accused on account of his liasion with her

Alteration of death penalty into imprisonment for life was a conscionable wage, in circumstances

Penalty of death awarded to the accused was altered into imprisonment for life.

Retracted confession either judicial or extra-judicial if found to be truthful and confidence inspiring and also qualifies the test of voluntariness, can be used for conviction without looking for any other sort of corroboration

Though it is not prudent to base conviction in a criminal case only on the strength of retracted confession without independent corroboration and necessary particulars and the court is under obligation to inquire into all the material points and surrounding circumstances to satisfy itself regarding the voluntariness of confession but it is not an inflexible rule that the retracted confession cannot be made the basis of conviction without independent corroboration rather the rule of corroboration is rule of abundant caution which is insisted only to exclude any possibility of doubt qua the guilt of a person

Retracted confession can be legally taken into consideration against the maker if the confession is found to be true and voluntary and can also be used as a sole evidence for conviction without any corroboration, if the court is satisfied about its voluntary character and truthfulness.

Court shall carefully scrutinize such confessional statement to ascertain as to whether all the formalities required thereto fulfilled by the court, which recorded such statement.

Confession having been retracted, therefore, the same would require further corroboration from the record for qualifying to be a valid ground for conviction.

Retracted confession was to be corroborated by some other independent evidence for recording conviction.

Where accused confesses his guilt but pleads not guilty during trial, then prosecution is bound to prove guilt beyond any shadow of doubt.

Confession was recorded with a delay of four days after arrest with no plausible explanation and such delayed confession could not be made basis for recording conviction on a capital charge

Longer the custody of accused, weaker the evidentiary value of confession

Conclusions drawn by trial court were not borne out of the evidence, therefore, the conviction was not sustainable

Criminal appeal was allowed.

Retracted confession, if corroborated by independent evidence of reliable nature, could be made basis for conviction on a capital charge, but it must be subject to thorough judicial scrutiny.

Complainant had alleged that wife of deceased had developed illicit relations with co-accused; that on the night of occurrence deceased went to sleep but did not wake up and was found dead; that complainant along with witnesses found red marks of violence on both sides of neck and chest of deceased; that maternal uncle of co-accused asked the complainant party that deceased died on the dictates of Allah and they should bury him quickly; that complainant and co-villagers being innocent persons remained silent and buried the dead body and that complainant suspected his daughter-in-law, sharing common intention with her paramour, might have added sleeping pills in the night meals and catered the same to family members, who all went to sleep and thereafter they might have committed the murder of deceased by way of throttling

Crime was reported to the police after 14 days of the occurrence

Prosecution mainly relied on the confessional statement of accused (wife of deceased)

Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of accused admitted that accused had given her judicial confession on oath, which was violative of S. 5 of Oaths Act, 1873; that after recording confessional statement, accused was handed over to the same police who had produced her before the court for recording her confessional statement; that he had not given warning to the accused in case if she confessed or did not confess, her custody would not be handed over to the same police; that person of accused was not searched in order to determine any marks of violence; that all questions were put to accused in English although it had been brought on record that accused did not understand English and she only understood "Thari language"

Magistrate had not complied with the requirement of S. 364, Cr.P.C.

Requirement of confessional statement was that it had to be free from inducement, threat, coercion and the same had to be true and voluntary

High Court observed that confessional statement of accused was not recorded as per required procedure and the same was a retracted confession, which otherwise suffered from legal defects and could not be relied upon for conviction

Trial Court had carefully scrutinized the entire evidence and documents on record and had arrived at the correct conclusion

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

Retracted judicial confession could be used against its maker in a capital case, provided that there was strong unimpeachable corroborative evidence from an independent source and that it was voluntary and truthful.

Retracted confession and judicial confession if ring true and are voluntary can be made the sole basis for the conviction of the maker thereof

Evidentiary value of the retracted confession does not diminish if the same gets corroborated from other facts and circumstances of the case

Independent corroboration from the other evidence, direct and circumstantial is essential.

Accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial court for kidnapping and compelling sister/ abductee of complainant for illegal marriage

None of the prosecution witnesses had witnessed occurrence in person

No one had come forward as witness to have seen accused abducting/ inducing co-accused abductee for purpose of illegal marriage

Testimony of witnesses was based on hearsay evidence which could not be made basis for conviction of accused

Prosecution was bound to have received CDR with an endorsement of cellular company concerned, having stamp and signature thereupon of concerned authorized officer

While taking into possession CDR, through a recovery memo, at least a concerned person should have been associated from cellular company to independently prove recovery

Prosecution could have at least recorded statement of representative of cellular company to effect issuance and receipt of CDR but no such evidence was collected

Confession made by co-accused/abductee was not only later on retracted but from such confession it appeared that she with her own sweet will went to house of accused

Elements of force, pressure and coercion on behalf of accused were missing in confession

Co-accused/abductee stated in her confession that she was divorced by her husband some years back therefore, she had contracted marriage with the accused

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court as prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Retracted confession, if confidence inspiring can be made a ground for conviction of the accused, however, when the same appears to be untrue and involuntary then it would not be safe to solely rely on the confession for conviction of the accused without further corroboration through confidence inspiring circumstantial evidence.

Widow of deceased (accused) was charged for murder on the statements of father (complainant) and brother of the deceased

Accused lady was arrested on the next day from the house of complainant and was produced before Judicial Magistrate, where she confessed her guilt and attributed effective role of murder to her paramour (co-accused)

Held; accused after commission of the crime was in the house of her in-laws, wherefrom she was arrested

Accused was charged for murder on 27/8/2015, however, she was not arrested on the same day but was arrested on the following day and was produced before Judicial Magistrate for recording of her confession

Judicial Magistrate should have provided the accused with an atmosphere where she should have felt no signs of fear

Contents of confession did not appear to be true because she had confessed about her illicit relations with the co-accused and said illicit relation, according to her confession, was suspected by her cousins and the deceased

Complainant did not mention about such illicit relation before the court and admitted that he did not know about any illicit relation between the accused persons

Investigating officer admitted that call data record of the day of occurrence showed that no conversation took place between the accused persons

Accused did not confess that she was present at the time of murder but site-plan prepared on the pointation of co-accused showed that accused was present at the place of occurrence

Contents of confession recorded by accused did not corroborate by other evidence, therefore, the same did not appear to be true

No corroborative piece of evidence was available on the file, which connected the co-accused with the commission of offence

Appeals against conviction were accepted, in circumstances.

Entire evidence was silent regarding connection of accused with crime except that he was present at place of occurrence and he was nominated by brother of deceased who was complainant

Complainant failed to place on record any evidence to connect accused with commission of offence

Case was based on circumstantial evidence and prosecution failed to prove same through cogent evidence and also failed to establish chain of evidence in any manner

Trial Court acquitted co-accused on same set of evidence which approach should have also been adopted to the extent of accused being an alleged co-accused

Alleged confession was not corroborated through independent evidence of reliable nature, therefore, same could not be used for purpose of conviction on capital charge

Prosecution had failed to link accused with murder of deceased which resulted into benefit of doubt in favour of accused

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted accused of charge as if slightest doubt emerged on record, benefit of same was extended to accused

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Retracted confession, if corroborated in material particulars could be based for recording conviction.

Parents of deceased recorded their statements under S.164, Cr.P.C. and disclosed the fact that their deceased daughter had illicit relations with the accused and had eloped with him; they also charged the accused for her murder

Accused was arrested and a shopkeeper handed over to the Investigating Officer a .30-bore pistol on the following day

Accused recorded his confessional statement during police custody thereby confessing his guilt of murder of the deceased, who had married him but she was not of good character

Such confession had no legal value and conviction could not be based on such confession

Neither report of abduction of their daughter was lodged by parents of the deceased for about 4/5 months from her alleged abduction by the accused nor any evidence was brought on the record to show the marriage of the accused with the deceased

Nothing incriminating was available on record to justify conviction of the accused

Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Conviction could not be based on such confession, which did not receive any corroboration from rest of the evidence.

Conviction could be based on retracted judicial confession, provided it was true and voluntary and corroborated by some strong piece of independent evidence.

Retracted confession was of no help to the prosecution case.

Confessional statement though retracted could be made basis for conviction if it was voluntary and supported by corroboratory evidence.

Judicial confession revealed that two shots were fired upon the deceased against which, one hit the deceased, following his death but such stance did not corroborate from the recovery, as only one empty was secured by the police

Judicial confession of co-convict showed that the stolen motorcycle was sold out by him in a festival in the sum of Rs. 28,000/-, but the recovery of motorcycle was effected on his pointation from an abandoned and deserted house

Circumstances persuaded that the judicial confession was untrue and not confidence inspiring

Record transpired that judicial confession had been reduced into writing in English and not in the language of the maker, which was also not understandable

Judicial Magistrate, who recorded confessional statement, had not mentioned in the certificate that he understand Pushto language and that the confession was translated word-by-word from Pushto to English

Absence of such certificate at the foot of such statement would make the same worthless, which could not be relied or acted upon

Accused and co-accused were in need of the interpreter while recording statement under S.342 Cr.P.C.

Neither any interpreter was appointed to translate nor such factum was disclosed in the certificate at the foot of their statement recorded under S. 342, which further created doubt about the veracity of judicial confessions

Co-accused maintained to have merely purchased the mobile set from another co-accused, but absolved himself for having knowledge about the said mobile set being a stolen or snatched one

Said confessional statement had become exculpatory, which was not only inadmissible but of no help to the prosecution in any manner.

Retracted confession, if voluntary and true, finding corroboration by independent evidence, could be made basis for recording conviction.

Retracted confession, if corroborated by independent evidence of reliable nature, could be made basis for conviction on a capital charge.

Court was to see that Judicial Magistrate prior to recording of confession of an accused, had fulfilled all the legal formalities and adopted all mandatory precautions.

Retracted confession could not be based as a ground for conviction of accused unless the same was corroborated by strong pieces of evidence and appeared to be voluntary, without any inducement, promise, duress or coercion

If retracted confession appeared to be voluntary and true, it was supposed to be the best evidence against the maker (accused) and could be made sole basis for conviction, without looking for corroboration.

Circumstances suggested that confessional statement retracted by the accused person, could not at all be called as voluntary judicial confession in the eye of law and the same had no legal effect

Conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court were set aside in circumstances.

Conviction could be based on retracted judicial confession provided same was true and voluntary and corroborated by some strong piece of independent evidence.

Conviction could be based on the retracted confession alone, if it was found voluntary, true and confidence inspiring.

Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel for marriage, cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing or belief of lawful marriage, marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife

Appreciation of evidence

Retracted confession

Scope

Prosecution case was that the accused abducted the wife of the complainant for the purpose of unlawful marriage

Co-accused lady knowingly that she was under the lawful wedlock of the complainant contracted unlawful marriage with the accused and accused after abducting the co-accused cohabited with her through deceitful means of a lawful marriage

Judicial Magistrate, who recorded confessional statement of accused deposed that order for producing the accused for recording evidence was not available

Identification of the accused before the judicial Magistrate was doubtful

Record showed that retracted confession was neither voluntary nor true, thus no reliance could be placed on the said retracted confession of the accused

Accused-appellants were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by Trial Court.

Retraction of confession would become wholly immaterial once it was found that it was voluntary as well as true.

Prosecution case was that son of complainant was allegedly abducted by the accused and co-accused for ransom but he was later on murdered by them

Accused had made confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate but they denied their confessional statement and had alleged that their alleged confessions were involuntary and was recorded after delay of fourteen days

Validity

Prosecution had not derived any undue advantage due to delay in recording confessions, as such said factor in no way adversely affected the voluntariness of confession

Record showed that both the accused were educated persons

If police wanted confessions on account of any coercion, accused persons had full opportunity to refuse the making of confessions before the Judicial Magistrate but it was not done

Confessions were corroborated by other evidence and appeared to have been made voluntarily, without any inducement or coercion

Mere fact that there were some irregularities in recording of confession would not warrant disregarding the same

Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstance.

Retracted confession not to be acted upon and made basis for conviction unless same was corroborated in material particulars.

Complainant alleged that his daughter was murdered by her husband and father-in-law with hatchet blows landing on her neck and face respectively

FIR depicted that it was night time occurrence

Eye-witnesses did not provide any explanation as to their presence at the place of occurrence (house of accused)

Source of identification of accused was not mentioned as same was night time occurrence

Persons other than eye-witnesses (relative) had also gathered at the time of occurrence but no one was examined by prosecution

Eye-witnesses were interested and inter-related, their testimony required independent corroboration

Confession was retracted and same was not recorded as per parameters set by law

Confession of accused was untrue and contradicted the prosecution story on material particulars of case, especially recovery of weapon

Medical evidence alone was not sufficient for recording conviction

Appeal against acquittal was without merits and dismissed accordingly.

Retracted confessional statements of accused, would do little to advance the case of prosecution, if same did not fulfil the legal threshold in the touchstone of being a genuine, truthful and voluntary.

Conviction of an accused can rightly be based on his retracted confession if court is satisfied that accused voluntarily recorded the same.

Accused persons were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life on the basis of confessional statement from which they retracted thereafter

Validity

Prosecution witnesses had not made any allegation against the present accused with regard to commission of offence

Only piece of evidence to connect the accused with the offence was alleged confessional statements recorded by them

If a conviction was to be based solely on confessional statement then court had to satisfy itself that same was voluntary, made promptly and had fulfilled the necessary pre-requisite

Accused should be informed and explained before recording confessional statement that whether or not he made the confession his custody would not be handed over to the police which had brought him there

Alleged confessional statements had been retracted by the accused

Corroboration in material particulars in cases of retracted confession was essential

Conviction could not be based solely on a retracted confession

No evidence had come against the accused in the present case

Contradictions between ocular and medical evidence were on record with regard to alleged time of death and time mentioned in the postmortem report

No corroboration of material particulars existed with the alleged retracted confessional statements

Prosecution was bound to establish its case beyond any doubt

Not only the confession was involuntary but same was also not corroborated by any single piece of evidence to connect the accused with the offence

Prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused

Conviction and sentence awarded to the accused were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge

Accused should be released forthwith if not required in any other case

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Delay simpliciter in recording of confession, could not be fatal to the case of the prosecution, but, the court was under legal obligation to examine the same keeping in view the circumstances of the case

Court was to satisfy as to whether the confession was voluntary, true and was recorded in accordance with law and whether it could be relied upon

If the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. was recorded after keeping the witness in long detention in the police custody, it was always viewed with suspicion

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

If there was unexplained delay for a considerable period, same was not to be taken into consideration without any independent corroboration

No basic difference existed between confession and a retracted confession

If the confessional statement of accused was found voluntary, conviction could be recorded, but the rule of caution required that a retracted confession must be supported by some other independent evidence connecting accused with the crime

Retracted confession was always open to suspicion, and could not be acted upon, unless it was corroborated by available independent, trustworthy and thorough truthful witnesses

Confessional statement could be relied upon, where supportive evidence of recoveries, effected at the instance of accused, had been proved on the record as well as medical evidence.

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

Courts were always vigilant in the matter, that the prosecution would prove in all circumstances that confessional statement was free of all kind of coercion, threat, promise; and was voluntary

Retracted confession would not be accepted as a gospel truth

Court was to carefully scrutinize confessional statement as to whether all the formalities required thereof were fulfilled.

Sole retracted confession of co-accused, could not be made basis for convicting accused, that could at best be used a corroborative piece of evidence.

True confession, was always a call of conscious, which compels accused to confess, despite knowing the consequence of his/her confession

Retracted confession in absence of direct, confidence inspiring and natural evidence was not solely sufficient to hold the conviction.

If a retracted confessional statement was found true, confidence-inspiring and voluntary, there remained no need at all to look into for further corroboration

Such confession could safely be made basis of capital punishment.

Complainant had charged none in the F.I.R., but had charged both the accused persons in his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C. after about 12/13 days of the occurrence; and for that belated statement he had neither furnished any plausible explanation nor had disclosed source of his satisfaction

Such belated statement without plausible explanation for the same, in the absence of disclosure of source of satisfaction had lost its evidentiary value and same could not be relied upon

Magistrate who had recorded alleged confessional statement of accused had totally/completely failed to observe and fulfil requisite formalities for recording confessional statement of accused

Said confessional statement being exculpatory and retracted, could not at all be called as voluntary judicial confession in the eye of law; and same having no legal effect, Trial Court was not justified to place reliance on the same

Recovery of the crime weapon at the pointation of accused having not at all been established, positive Forensic Science Laboratory's report in that regard seemed totally fabricated and manoeuvred on which no reliance could be placed, in circumstances

Recovery of rifle, cartridges and mobile, was of no use to the prosecution because the prosecution had failed to prove through reliable evidence that those articles were the belongings of the deceased

Prosecution had failed to establish its case against both the accused persons beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt

Conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against accused persons, were set aside, they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them and they were set at liberty, in circumstances.

Both the accused confessed their guilt before Magistrate through their statements recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C., which statements were subsequently retracted by accused

Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced to death on two counts

High Court maintained the sentence awarded by Trial Court

Validity

Retracted confession should have been corroborated by some other independent evidence and the same seldom sufficed by itself to record a conviction on the basis of the same

Weapons and cash recovered during investigation did not stand connected with alleged offences and there was no other piece of evidence produced by prosecution to provide any corroboration to retracted confessions attributed to accused persons

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt

Supreme Court set aside convictions and sentences awarded to both the accused by the courts below and extending them benefit of doubt, they were acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed.