1996 JTR(SC) 679
1996 3 AICLR 642 ; 1997 AIR(SC) 445 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 3829 ; 1996 3 CCR(SC) 104 ; 1996 CriLR 533 ; 1996 CrLJ 4458 ; 1996 Supp JT 521 ; 1997 1 RCR(Cri) 304 ; 1996 5 Scale 664 ; 1996 10 SCC 432 ; 1996 SCC(Cri) 1343 ; 1996 3 SCR 939 ; 1996 KHC 1291 ; 1996 6 Supreme 139
1996(6) Supreme 139
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Preetam -Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 110 of 1986
Decided on 26-3-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra & B.K. Satija, Advocates.
For the Respondent : K.N. Shukla, Sr. Advocate, Prashant Kumar, S.K. Sinha and V.N. Singh, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Omission to comply with mandatory requirement by Magistrate to put questions to accused to satisfy himself that confession was voluntary so as to enable him to give requisite certificate u/s 164(4) Cr.P.C. renders confession not admissible as piece of evidence.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.164
EVIDENCE ACT : S.24
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.404, S.302
A) The appellant was tried for murder and theft under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, with the prosecutions case heavily dependent on a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The High Courts reversal of acquittal relied on this confession, but this court examines whether the confession was legally valid in light of the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 164(2) of the Cr.P.C., which require the magistrate to ensure voluntariness and make a corroborative certificate before recording it. The subsequent recoveries relied upon as corroborative evidence are also evaluated in light of the tainted confession.
B) A confession recorded without fulfilling the prerequisites of Section 164(2) of the Cr.P.C. is inadmissible; corroboration under Section 164(4) is void if the confession itself is illegally obtained, and convictions cannot rest solely on uncorroborated recovery evidence of a doubtful nature.
Facts of the case:
The deceased Chhita was found murdered on June 15, 1973 with ornaments removed. The appellant was arrested on June 17, 1973, moved to judicial custody, and his confession was recorded on June 25, 1973. The trial court acquitted the appellant, but the High Court set aside the acquittal, relying on the confession and recoveries. This court reviewed the record to assess the validity of the confession.
Findings of Court:
The trial court and the High Court found the eyewitnesses unreliable. The High Court treated the confession as voluntary and true, and viewed the recoveries as corroborative. This court found the confession was recorded in violation of Section 164(2) Cr.P.C. and therefore inadmissible, and the recoveries were insufficient to support conviction.
Issues:
Whether the confession was legally valid and admissible; whether the High Court was justified in relying on it; whether the remaining evidence could sustain a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the confession was recorded without the mandatory inquiry into voluntariness under Section 164(2) Cr.P.C., it was inadmissible; without it, the prosecutions case collapsed, and the remaining evidence was insufficient, necessitating acquittal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted and discharged.
A) The appellant was tried for murder and theft under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, with the prosecutions case heavily dependent on a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The High Courts reversal of acquittal relied on this confession, but this court examines whether the confession was legally valid in light of the mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 164(2) of the Cr.P.C., which require the magistrate to ensure voluntariness and make a corroborative certificate before recording it. The subsequent recoveries relied upon as corroborative evidence are also evaluated in light of the tainted confession.
B) A confession recorded without fulfilling the prerequisites of Section 164(2) of the Cr.P.C. is inadmissible; corroboration under Section 164(4) is void if the confession itself is illegally obtained, and convictions cannot rest solely on uncorroborated recovery evidence of a doubtful nature.
Facts of the case:
The deceased Chhita was found murdered on June 15, 1973 with ornaments removed. The appellant was arrested on June 17, 1973, moved to judicial custody, and his confession was recorded on June 25, 1973. The trial court acquitted the appellant, but the High Court set aside the acquittal, relying on the confession and recoveries. This court reviewed the record to assess the validity of the confession.
Findings of Court:
The trial court and the High Court found the eyewitnesses unreliable. The High Court treated the confession as voluntary and true, and viewed the recoveries as corroborative. This court found the confession was recorded in violation of Section 164(2) Cr.P.C. and therefore inadmissible, and the recoveries were insufficient to support conviction.
Issues:
Whether the confession was legally valid and admissible; whether the High Court was justified in relying on it; whether the remaining evidence could sustain a conviction.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the confession was recorded without the mandatory inquiry into voluntariness under Section 164(2) Cr.P.C., it was inadmissible; without it, the prosecutions case collapsed, and the remaining evidence was insufficient, necessitating acquittal.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted and discharged.
ORDER
Preetam, the appellant herein and his brother Ishwar Lal were placed on trial before the Sessions Judge, Morena, for committing the murder of one Chhita on June 15, 1973 and removing ornaments from his person. The trial ended in an acquittal and aggrieved thereby the respondent-State preferred an appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal so far as it related to Ishwar Lal but set aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. The above order of reversal is under challenge in this appeal.
2. To prove its case the prosecution relied upon three eye witnesses, the doctor who held the autopsy, a judicial confession of the appellant and some recoveries made pursuant to his statement. While accepting the evidence of the prosecution so far as it sought to prove that Chhita met with a homicidal death, the trial Court rejected the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the appellant was the author of the crimes. The High Court concurred with the finding of the trial Court that the three eye witnesses could not be relied upon but found the confession voluntary and true and as, according to it, the evidence relating to recovery corroborated the confession reversed the order of acquittal relying upon the same.
3. Since the reasons given by the learned courts below for disbelieving the eyewitnesses are cogent and convincing we must leave their evidence out of our consideration. We, therefore, proceed to consider whether the High Court was justified in making the confession the basis for conviction of the appellant.
4. It appears from the record that the appellant was arrested on June 17, 1973 and on his production before the Magistrate on the following day was directed to be sent to police custody, as prayed for by the investigating officer. He remained in such custody till June 22, 1973 when he was sent to judicial custody under orders of the magistrate. Thereafter he was produced before the Magistrate on June 25, 1973 for recording his confession. On his production, the Magistrate gave him two hours time to reflect and then recorded the confession. From the confessional statement (exhibit P.11) we find that the magistrate (p.w. 8) first disclosed his identity and told him that he was not bound to make any confession and if he did so, it might be used as evidence against him. After administering the above caution the Magistrate recorded the confession and then made the memorandum required under Sub-section (4) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. In our considered view, the confession so recorded is in utter disregard of the statutory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. Under the above sub-section the Magistrate is first required to explain to the accused that he was not bound to make a confession and that if he did so it might be used against him. Though this requirement has been complied with in the instant case, the other requirement which obligates the Magistrate to put questions to the accused to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary so as to enable him to give the requisite certificate under Sub-Section (4), has not been fulfilled for, the learned Magistrate did not ask any question whatsoever to ascertain whether the appellant was making the confession voluntarily. In view of such flagrant omission to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 164(2) Cr.P.C. we must hold that the High Court was not at all justified in entertaining the confession as a piece of evidence, much less, a reliable one. Once the confession is left out of consideration - as it has got to be - the only other piece of evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged offences are the recoveries allegedly made pursuant to his statement. Event if we proceed on the assumption that the evidence led by the prosecution in this behalf is reliable, still, considering its nature, we are unable to hold that it can made the sole basis for conviction even for the offence under Section 404 I.P.C.
5. On the conclusions above, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled against him. The appellant who is on bail is discharged from his bail bonds.
Appeal allowed.
*******