Section 164 Confession Recorded Mechanically Cannot Sustain Conviction; Death Sentence Set Aside: Supreme Court

The appellant, a labourer, was tried for the rape and murder of a minor girl whose body was found in a field near the shed where her family slept (para 1). The Sessions Court convicted him principally on his judicial confession and, noting that he had been found guilty of similar offences, sentenced him to death; the High Court affirmed (paras 2-3). Before the Supreme Court it was not disputed that apart from the confession there was no other material sufficient to establish guilt (para 4). The Magistrate who recorded the confession admitted that he recorded a second confession of the appellant in another case immediately afterwards, and that no legal aid had been provided (para 7).

A judicial confession is admissible and can found a conviction if truthful, deliberate, voluntary and clearly proved; voluntariness depends on threat, inducement or promise, and truth is judged against the whole prosecution case (para 12). A retracted confession must be looked upon with greater concern (para 14). Section 164 contains safeguards that must be strictly complied with, which means "compliance of the statutory provisions in letter and spirit", not in a routine or mechanical manner (paras 15-16). The court must give the accused sufficient time to decide; here the appellant had been in police custody for sixteen days, and the first confession, including the Magistrate's preliminary questions, took fifteen minutes before a second was begun (para 16). "Taking of a statement of an accused on oath is prohibited", yet oath was administered (para 10). The confession was inconsistent with the prosecution case on the time of the offence and on whether the girl slept alone (para 9). Where the accused confessed in many cases at once, the State could not deny him legal aid for three years (para 19). The supposed corroboration did not form links pointing to the appellant alone (para 21).