Judgment Intelligence
Other- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 12 December 2006
- Bench
- Justices S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120B, 201, 302, 34; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 24-27, 30; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 164, 311, 313; Constitution of India — Articles 20(3), 21
The appeals of the three co-accused were allowed and their convictions set aside, and their release was ordered; the first appellant's appeal was partly allowed and his death sentence commuted to imprisonment for life (para 164).
Key holdings
- A voluntary, spontaneous extra-judicial confession made before several credible witnesses can be relied on; reproduction of the exact words is not essential (paras 59-62).
- No conviction can rest on an uncorroborated retracted confession; corroboration must be independent, and courts must probe the reasons for retraction (paras 101, 105, 107).
- A co-accused's confession under Section 30 of the Evidence Act is only corroborative; without substantive evidence it cannot found a conviction (para 128).
- Where a public authority fails to produce a document called for, the adverse inference is drawn against it, not against the accused (paras 112-114).
- Where the case rests on circumstantial evidence, the death penalty ordinarily should not be imposed; the death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment (paras 157, 162, 164).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Maharashtra v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde & Others (2000) 6 SCC 269
Only the part of a confession that leads to discovery is admissible; the whole confession should not be exhibited.
- Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC 657
Scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, citing Pulukuri Kottaya: the fact discovered embraces the place and the accused's knowledge.
- Heramba Brahma and Another v. State of Assam AIR 1982 SC 1595
Rendered on its own facts (confession to a stranger in jail); not an authority that an extra-judicial confession must pass the test of reproducing the exact words.
View all precedents (27)
- State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180
A voluntary, true extra-judicial confession made in a fit state of mind and proved by credible witnesses can be the basis of conviction; corroboration is a rule of prudence.
- Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343
In circumstantial cases the chain must be complete and consistent only with guilt.
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 = (1984) 4 SCC 116
The five conditions for conviction on circumstantial evidence; suspicion cannot take the place of proof.
- Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 159
A particularly cruel murder calls for more than ordinary care in examining the evidence.
- Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan (1978) 3 SCC 435
A confession must satisfy the double test of being voluntary and true before it is acted on.
- Muthuswami v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 4
A wealth of uncorroborated detail in a confession is no safeguard of truth unless its main features are shown to be true.
- Smt. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and Another AIR 1978 SC 1025
The protection of Article 20(3) extends back to police interrogation.
- State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600
Article 20(3) applies at the investigation stage; a retracted confession needs general assurance that the retraction was an afterthought.
- Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra (1980) 4 SCC 600
Cited on the stage at which Article 20(3) operates.
- Babubhai Udesinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat 2006 (12) SCALE 385
A Magistrate questioning an accused brought from police custody should sometimes be more intrusive than the law requires.
- Bhuboni Sahu v. R. AIR 1949 PC 257
A retracted confession of a co-accused cannot corroborate the retracted confession of an accused; such a confession is only one element to be weighed.
- Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar (1964) 6 SCR 623
A co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence and can only lend assurance to other evidence.
- Subramania Goundan v. The State of Madras AIR 1958 SC 66
The court must be satisfied that a retracted confession was true and voluntary when made.
- Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1963 SC 1094
The court must be satisfied that a retracted confession was true and voluntary when made.
- Puran v. The State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 459
Caution and prudence in accepting a retracted confession is an ordinary rule.
- Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216
A retracted confession corroborated in material particulars may found a conviction; the Court noted decisions requiring the retraction to be wholly false.
- Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam AIR 2004 SC 4197
Broad corroboration of a retracted confession; such a confession must be substantially corroborated by independent evidence.
- Bharat v. State of U.P. (1971) 3 SCC 950
Courts do not act on a retracted confession without assurance from other sources as to guilt.
- Sidharth and Others v. State of Bihar (2005) 12 SCC 545
Relied on by the State; there the confession was corroborated by independent circumstances, unlike here.
- Ram Parkash v. The State of Punjab 1959 SCR 1219
A retracted confession can be considered against a co-accused under Section 30 only with full and strong corroboration in material particulars.
- Sahdeo and Others etc. v. State of U.P. (2004) 10 SCC 682
Where the offence is proved by circumstantial evidence, ordinarily the death penalty should not be awarded.
- Sheikh Ishaqe and Others v. State of Bihar (1995) 3 SCC 392
Where the offence is proved by circumstantial evidence, ordinarily the death penalty should not be awarded.
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Death penalty only in the rarest of rare cases.
- Machhi Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470
Illustrative circumstances for the rarest of rare category.
