Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Tulsi Singh, was tried by the Special Court Ferozepur for the murder of his wife, Chhinder Kaur. The trial ended in his conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by the conviction, he filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. There was no eyewitness to the murder. The prosecution rested its case on a confession made by the appellant before a Judicial Magistrate and the evidence of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination and opined that the death was homicidal. The appellant did not dispute that his wife suffered a homicidal death, but he denied being responsible for the murder and contended that he did not make any voluntary confession. The Special Court, however, found the confession to be voluntary and true and relied solely upon it to convict the appellant. The only point urged on behalf of the appellant was that the Special Court was not justified in entertaining the confession as evidence because it was not recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Specifically, it was argued that before recording the confession, the learned Magistrate did not explain to the appellant that he was not bound to make a confession and that if he did so it might be used against him, nor did he put any question to satisfy himself that the confession was being voluntarily made, as required under sub-section (2) of Section 164 CrPC. The Supreme Court examined the evidence of the Magistrate and the confession. The record showed that after his arrest, the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on June 16, 1984 and sent to police custody for a week. He was produced again on June 22, 1984, when he volunteered to make a confession. The Magistrate remanded him to judicial custody with a direction that he be produced the following day, June 23, 1984. The confession was recorded immediately after he was produced on that day. Although the Magistrate testified that he satisfied himself that the accused was making a voluntary statement and that after giving due caution he recorded it, the confession did not anywhere indicate whether the requisite caution was given and whether questions were put to ascertain that the confession was being made voluntarily. The Court held that these are the basic prerequisites for recording a confession under sub-section (2) of Section 164 CrPC, and a mere endorsement in accordance with sub-section (4) after recording it would not fulfil the requirements of the former sub-section. Since neither of the two requirements of Section 164(2) CrPC had been complied with, the Court had no alternative but to hold that the Special Court was not justified in entertaining the confession as a voluntary one. Once the confession was excluded from consideration, the impugned conviction could not be sustained in the absence of any other incriminating evidence against the appellant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant, and discharged the appellant from his bail bonds.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Confession Recording - Admissibility of Confession - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 164(2) - The accused's confession was recorded by a Magistrate but the record did not indicate that he was cautioned that he was not bound to make a confession and that it might be used against him, nor did it show that the Magistrate put questions to ascertain voluntariness; the Magistrate's oral testimony that he satisfied himself was insufficient. Held that the mandatory requirements of Section 164(2) CrPC were not complied with, and the confession could not be treated as voluntary; once excluded, the conviction under Section 302 IPC could not sustain in absence of other incriminating evidence.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the confession recorded by the Magistrate was admissible in evidence despite non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 164(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether conviction under Section 302 IPC could be sustained solely on such confession.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant, who was on bail, discharged from his bail bonds.
Law Points
- Confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC must comply with sub-section (2) safeguards
- Magistrate must explain accused not bound to confess and that confession may be used against him
- Magistrate must question accused to satisfy voluntary nature
- mere endorsement under sub-section (4) insufficient
- conviction cannot be based solely on invalid confession absent other incriminating evidence.
