Case Note & Summary
This criminal appeal arose from a conviction recorded by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversing the trial court's acquittal. The appellant, Preetam, and his brother Ishwar Lal were tried before the Sessions Judge, Morena for the murder of Chhita on June 15, 1973 and for removing ornaments from his person. The trial court acquitted both accused, but on appeal by the State, the High Court dismissed the appeal in respect of Ishwar Lal while setting aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicting him under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant challenged this reversal before the Supreme Court. The prosecution relied upon three eyewitnesses, the doctor who conducted the autopsy, a judicial confession made by the appellant, and certain recoveries made pursuant to his statement. The trial court accepted that Chhita met a homicidal death but rejected the evidence connecting the appellant to the crime. The High Court concurred that the eyewitnesses could not be relied upon but found the judicial confession voluntary and true, and treated the recovery evidence as corroboration, thereby reversing the acquittal. The Supreme Court left the eyewitness evidence out of consideration as the reasons for disbelieving them were cogent and convincing. The central issue was whether the High Court was justified in basing the conviction on the judicial confession. The record showed that the appellant was arrested on June 17, 1973, kept in police custody until June 22, 1973, then remanded to judicial custody, and produced before the Magistrate on June 25, 1973 for recording his confession. The Magistrate gave him two hours to reflect and then recorded the confession. From the confession statement (Exhibit P.11), it appeared that the Magistrate disclosed his identity, told the appellant he was not bound to make a confession and that it might be used against him, and thereafter recorded the confession and made the memorandum under Section 164(4) CrPC. The Supreme Court observed that the confession was recorded in utter disregard of Section 164(2) CrPC. While the first requirement—informing the accused that he was not bound to make a confession and that it might be used against him—was fulfilled, the second mandatory requirement that the Magistrate put questions to the accused to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary was not complied with because the Magistrate did not ask any question whatsoever. The Court held that due to this flagrant omission, the High Court was not justified in entertaining the confession as evidence, much less a reliable one. Once the confession was excluded, the only remaining evidence connecting the appellant to the offences consisted of recoveries allegedly made pursuant to his statement. The Court observed that even if that recovery evidence were assumed reliable, its nature was such that it could not form the sole basis for conviction even for the offence under Section 404 IPC. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, acquitted the appellant of the charges levelled against him, and discharged him from his bail bonds. The decision reinforced the mandatory character of the safeguards under Section 164 CrPC and the principle that uncorroborated recovery evidence cannot sustain a conviction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Confessions - Section 164(2) and 164(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The Magistrate recorded a judicial confession after cautioning the accused but did not ask any question to ascertain whether the confession was voluntary; the Supreme Court held that the mandatory requirement to question the accused under Section 164(2) was not fulfilled and the confession was inadmissible, thus could not form basis of conviction; Held that the High Court was not justified in entertaining the confession as evidence. B) Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Sections 302 and 404 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Recovery evidence allegedly made pursuant to the appellant's statement was the only remaining evidence after excluding the confession; the Supreme Court held that such recoveries, even if assumed reliable, could not be the sole basis for conviction under Section 404 IPC; Held that the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 404 IPC based on a judicial confession recorded without compliance with Section 164(2) CrPC and on recovery evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned High Court order, acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 302 and 404 IPC, and discharged him from bail bonds.
Law Points
- A confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC must strictly comply with sub-section (2)
- Magistrate is duty-bound to question accused to satisfy himself that confession is voluntary
- failure to ask any question renders confession inadmissible
- recoveries made pursuant to statement cannot be sole basis for conviction
- appellate court cannot reverse acquittal on invalid confession
