Retracted Confession Needs Corroboration as Rule of Prudence; Temporary Removal Is Theft: Supreme Court

The appellant, a Superintendent in the Chief Engineer's Office, Alwar, was alleged to have had a file brought from the Secretariat through a clerk, taken it home and made it available to a friend, who removed an affidavit and an application and substituted other papers (para 2). The file was returned to the office the next day (para 7). During a departmental inquiry, after the Officiating Chief Secretary said he would hand the inquiry to the police if the truth did not come out, the appellant made an admission, later retracted (paras 5-6). He was convicted under Section 379 IPC and fined Rs. 200; the High Court confirmed it in revision (paras 1-2).

Section 24 requires that the confession ‘appear’ to the court to have been caused by the threat, inducement or promise; this imports a lesser degree of probability than proof under Section 3, but not pure surmise, and a prima facie opinion on the evidence suffices (para 4). The threat must come from a person in authority and be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the accused that confessing would bring an advantage or avoid an evil; the court must place itself in the accused's position (para 5). The Chief Secretary was an authority, but three courts concurrently found his remark was not a threat, and the Court would not differ under Article 136 (para 5). Corroboration of a retracted confession is "not a rule of law, but is only rule of prudence", and the High Court found it in a witness's evidence and the dak book entry (para 6). The file was in the department's possession, not the appellant's (para 7). Two illustrations to Section 378 show that temporary deprivation causes wrongful loss (para 8).