When a confession is not signed properly by its maker that is not a confession at all. We are not inclined to accept these so-called confessional statements as true and voluntary and these are not admissible.......(35) 73 DLR (2021) 260
From the statements under section 164 of the Code it appears that both of the condemned-prisoners were present in the chamber of Magistrate at the same time and in a same sitting Magistrate recorded the so- called confessional statement. Though Rule 79(5) of CrR&O, 2009 categorically mentioned that "During examination of the accused and recording of his statement, no co-accused and police personnel shall remain present." 73 DLR (2021) 260
Confession
The
confession of an accused recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. being a matter of
serious consideration at the trial of a murder case, the Public Prosecutor
acted in an irresponsible and negligent manner in not utilisilig the same. The
learned Judge was also wrong in hastily rejecting the prosecution's prayer for
examining the Magistrate. Mosammat Amena Khatun Vs. The State and others,
14BLD(HCD) 332
Confession
To be
the basis of conviction a confession must be voluntary and true and it must
also be inculpatory in nature. A retracted confession requires independent and
reliable corroboration before it is accepted and acted upon. Confession of a
co-accused is no evidence against other accused persons. It may, however, lend
assurance to other evidence- Evidence Act 1872, Ss. 24.30.Dula Miah alia s
Nurul Islam and others Vs. The State, 14BLD(HCD)477
Ref:
27 DLR(AD)29; 44DLR(AD) 10, I.L.R. Indian Appeals 147; 12 DLR(SC) 156;
12DLR(SC)217; 36 DLR 185; 16 DLR 147; 45DLR 171; A.LR. 1939 (PC) 47; 25 DLR
399; A.I.R. 1957(SC) 107;6BLD(AD)1-Cited
Extra-judicial
confession
By its
very nature it is a very weak type of evidence and it is required to be
scrutinized with great care and caution. To base a conviction on such
confession it must be corroborated by other evidence of unimpeachable
character. Zafar and others Vs. The State, 14BLD (HCD)280
Ref:
33 DLR 320; 11 D.L.R. (HC) 365; 27 D.L.R. (SC) 1; 38 DLR 289; 41 DLR 11; 50
Cr.L. J. 569
Confession
The
unretracted confession and the un- qualified admission of guilt by the accused
at the trial can legally form the sole basis of his conviction-Cr.P.C; S. 164
Abdul
Awal and others Vs. The State, 14BLD(HCD)187 Ref: 1952 S.C.R. ( India
)526-Cited
Confession
When a
confessional statement has been properly recorded by the Magistrate in accor-
with the requirements of sections 164 and 364 Cr. P.C., the said confessional
state- ment is admissible in evidence under section 80 of the Evidence Act even
without examining the recording Magistrate. Mosammat Amena khatun Vs. The State
and others, 14BLD(HCD)332
Confession
When
the record shows that the superintendent of the jail hospital reported to the
Upazila Magistrate that the appellants were admitted in the jail hospital for
treatment with multiple injuries on their person just on the following day of
recording their confessional statements and the conduct of the Investigation
Officer is not above board, such confessions must be held to be involuntary-
Cr.P.C. 164
Bachhu
alias Ekramul Haq and others Vs. The State, 14BLD(HCD)588
Confession
It
requires that a Magistrate before re- cording any confession shall have to
explain to the confessing accused that if he makes any confession it may be
used against him. In this case the learned Magistrate having not warned the
confessing accused in terms of this mandatory provision of law, the confession
must be left out of consideration- Cr.P.C. 164(3)
Bachhu
alias Ekramul Haq and others Vs. The State, 14BLD(HCD)588
Confession
Section
30 of the Evidence Act provides that the confession of a co-accused can be
taken into consideration along with other evidence but it does not say that
such a confession amounts to proof. In the absence of any substantive evidence
on record, either direct or circumstantial, implicating the appellant in the
alleged offence, the confessional state- ment of a co-accused can never be
treated as a substantive evidence and no conviction can be based on such confessional
statement.
Evidence
Act, 1872 (I of 1872), Section-30 Ustar Ali Vs. The State, 18BLD (AD) 43 Ref:
ILR76 Indian appeals 147; 27DLR 29; 44DLR(AD)10—Cited
Confession
Statement
of witness recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. is never a substantive evidence
and it cannot be used against the accused. The prosecution is, however,
entitled to impeach the credit of its own witness as it is permissible under
section 164 of the Evidence Act. Mahbubur Rahman and others Vs. The State,
18BLD (HCD) 309
Confession
Assurance
or caution are necessary in case of long detention of the accused in the police
custody before the confessional statement is recorded. In the absence of such
assurance or caution rendered the confessional statement untrue and involuntary
and as such it cannot be used against the accused- appellant nor against his
co-accused-Section-164
The
State Vs Ali Hossain, 18BLD (HCD) 655
Confession
It is
an accepted proposition of law that the confession of a co-accused is no
evidence against the other accused. Under section 30 of the Evidence Act, the
court may take such a confession into consideration only to lend assurance to
other evidence which by itself must be sufficient to support a conviction
Evidence Act 1872, Ss. 3 and 30
Abdul Awal
and others Vs. The State, 14BLD(HCD)187 Ref: 1952 S.C.R. (India)526-Cited
Confession
Belated
retraction of confession
Once a
confession is found by the court to be true and voluntary, a retraction is of
no help to the confessing accused. The necessity of some sort of corroboration
in such a case is not a requirement of law although it is usually desired as a
rule of prudence. S. 164
The
State Vs. Tajul Islam and others, 15BLD (HCD) 53
Confession
Statements
made by the witnesses and recorded by a Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C are
not confessional statements. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was obviously
wrong in treating the said statements as confessional statements and
misdirected himself in convicting the appellants thereon.
Muslim
and others Vs. The State, 15 BLD(HCD) 298
Confession
A
statement made under section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive evidence. It may
be used only for corroborating or contradicting a witness. Consequently, when a
witness completely resiles from his earlier statement and gives a different
story to the court, his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. loses all its
relevance. Md. Jiaur Rahman Vs. The State, 15 BLD(HCD) 459
Confession
Confession
of a co-accused is no evidence against other accused persons and the same
cannot be made the sole basis of their conviction. The court can however
consider the confession of a co-accused to lend assurance to other independent
evidence-Evidence Act, 1872, S. 3
The
State Vs. Md. Musa, 15BLD (HCD)169
Confession
Under
this section there is no necessity of a formal proof of a confession duly
recorded by a Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The examination of the recording Magistrate is
not essential in such a case- Evidence Act, 1872, S. 80
The
State Vs. Tajul Islam and others, 15BLD(HCD) 53
Confession
Under
section 3 of the Evidence Act the 80 confession of a co-accused is no evidence
against other accused persons but under section 30 of the said Act the
confession of a co- accused can be taken into consideration against other
accused persons only for the limited purpose of lending assurance to other
legal evidence on record. Evidence Act, 1872, S. 3 and 30The State Vs. Tajul
Islam and others, 15 BLD(HCD) 53
Confession
A
confessional statement even if it is partly true or partly false or in other
words does not disclose the full picture can be used against the maker and
there is no legal bar in upholding the conviction on the basis of the confession.
The
State Vs. Billal Hossain, 20BLD (HCD)45
Confession
Confession
of a co-accused, use of
Even
if the confessional statement of one accused is found to be true and voluntary,
still his confession cannot be used against those who are co-accused in the
case, as the basis for convicting them when there is no other evidence against
them.
Dr
Ishaq Ali Vs The State (1993) 13BLD (HCD)236
Ref:
5DLR 369; 18 DLR (West Pakistan) 112 Cited
Confession
When
the statements of the confessing accused are recorded under section 164 Cr-
P.C. after 3 days of their arrest by the police and the learned Magistrate
fails to ascertain as to where the accused persons had been kept during this
period and the prosecution offers no explanation for the same, the confessions become
doubtful. Abul Kashem and others Vs. The State, 16BLD(HCD)120
Confession
In
view of the fact that the accused was kept in police custody for 3 days
preceding the recording of his confession by the Magistrate on a plain piece of
paper without properly complying with the provisions of section 164 Cr.P.C. and
the forwarding report by the police mentioned injuries on the person of the
accused, such a confession becomes inadmissible in evidence.
Alaluddin
alias Alauddin and others Vs. The State, 16BLD(HCD)350 Ref: 43DLR (HC) 389;
9BLD (HC) 477; 43DLR (HC) 512 Cited
Confession
When a
confessing accused was kept in police custody for 2 days immediately pre-
ceding his production before the Magistrate for recording his confessional
statement such a confession must be taken with utmost cau- tion. Section-164.
Abdul
Jabbar Vs. The State, 16 BLD (HCD) 552
Confession
It
provides that the confession of a co- accused is not a substantive evidence but
it can be used against the co-accused to lend assurance to other evidence on
record-Evidence Act, 1872(I of 1872) Section.30.
Moslemuddin
and another Vs. The State, 16BLD(HCD)3
Confession
Prolonged
police custody immediately preceding the recording of confession, if not
otherwise properly explained, is sufficient to brand it as involuntary-Section.
164
Faruk
Mahajan and ors. Vs. The State, 17BLD (HCD) 15
Confession
Columns
3,4 and 8 of the prescribed form for recording confessions have not been filled
up by the Magistrate. Therefore this piece of paper (confessional statement of
the peti- tioner) is highly suspicious and is therefore unworthy of
consideration by any Court- Section-164(3)
Mrs.
Jobaida Rashid Vs. The State, 17 BLD(HCD) 352
Ref:
'Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence-By M. Monir; Queen Vs. Blake,
1844 6.B.126; 17BLD(1997)11; 17 BLD (AD) (1997) 54; 17 BLD (AD) (1997) 163:
2BLC (AD)(1997) 75—Cited
Confession
Before
recording the confessional state- ment the recording Magistrate did not assure
the confessing accused that he would not be sent police custody after recording
his confession and, in fact, the accused was sent to police custody instead of
judicial custody after recording his confession. The procedure adopted by the
learned Magistrate is unacceptable to judicial scrutiny. Such a confession
leaves enough scope for lurking fear in the mind of the confessing accused and
as such it cannot be relied upon-Cr.P.C. Section-164 Nil Ratan Biswas and
others Vs. The State, 17BLD(HCD) 613
Ref:
PLD1958 (Lahore) 559; PLD 1964 (WP) (Peshawar) 1; PLD 1960 (Karachi) 674 Cited
Confession
The
evidentiary value of the confession of a co-accused is practically nil against
other accused persons in the absence of any inde- pendent corroborative
evidence.
Faruk
Mahajan and ors. Vs. The State, 17BLD(HCD) 15
Confession
The
judicial consensus is that the provi- sions of section 164(3) of the Code must
be strictly complied with before a confession is admitted into evidence and it
is used against the accused. The recording Magistrate is un- der an obligation
to make a real and substan- tial inquiry to ascertain the voluntariness of the
confession. Section-164
Khan
Pathan and ors Vs. The State, 19BLD (HCD) 74
Ref:
AIR 1936(P.C) 253, 41DLR 64,50 DLR17 Cited.
Confession
Formalities
as provided under sections 164 and 364 of the Code have not been com- plied
with in recording the confessional statement of the accused. It appears that
the confessing accused made the confessional statement after coming from the
police re- mand which in no way remove the doubt that the said confessional
statement is the product of threat, coercion and physical torture, moreover,
there is no independent evidence to corroborate the same. The confessional
statement appears to be exculpatory having no active part in the occurrence by
the con- fessing accused and as such the same cannot be used against its maker
and as such the conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of said
confessional statement.
Md.
Akbar Ali Vs. The State, 19BLD (HCD) 268
Confession
By its
very nature it is a very weak type of evidence. It is unsafe to base conviction
of an accused on his extra judicial confession alone. The value of such
confession as evi- dence depends on the varacity of witnesses to whom it is
made. In a case of such confession material corroboration by evidence of unimpeachable
character is required-Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), Section-24
The
State Vs. Hasen Ali, 19BLD (HCD) 418
Confession
Section
30 of the Act provides that the confession of a co-accused can be taken into
consideration to lend assurance to other substantive evidence on record, but it
never says that such confession amounts to proof. In the instant case there
being no substantive evidence, either direct or circumstantial, implicating Ansar
Ali, Montaz, Bhola and Hormuz Ali in the alleged commission of dacoity, the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge was wrong in convicting the appellants on the
basis of the confessional statement of their two co- accused-Evidence Act,
1872, S. 30
Md.
Ansar Ali Vs. The State, 19BLD (HCD)224
Ref:
Ustar Ali Vs. The State, 18BLD (AD) (1998)43-relied upon
Confession
Though
there is no requirement of lawthat the recording Magistrate should invariably
assure an accused that he will not be remanded to police custody whether he
confesses or not, but it becomes incumbent uponhim to do so when the
Investigating Officerprays for police remand after recording confession.
Variation and contradictions between the prosecution case and the confessional
statement under the confession unacceptable. S. 164, Cr.P.C.
Zakir
Hossain Vs. The State, 13 BLD (HCD) 671
Confession
Section
164 sub-section 3, whether speaks of the manner of recording confession of an
accused. S.164(3)Sub-section (3) of section 164 Cr.P.C. speaks of the manner as
to how a confession of an accused is to be recorded by a Magistrate and this is
a mandatory provision and failure to
comply with it shall make the confession invalid and unreliable t. This
provision of law along with provisions of section364 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure require to be strictly observed and followed to make the confession
voluntary and true in the real sense to be fit for reliance for convicting an
accused in his confession.
Abdul
Hossain and others Vs. State, 13 BLD (HCD) 311
Confession-confessional
statement
Before
a confession is accepted and re- lied upon it must be found not only to be voluntary
but also to be true. Section-164.
Moslemuddin
and another Vs. The State, 16BLD(HCD)3
Confession
of co accused
Section
30 of the Act provides that the confession of a co-accused can be taken into
consideration to lend assurance to other substantive evidence on record but it
never says that such confession amounts to proof. In the instant case, there
being no substantive evidence, either direct or circumstantial, implicating the
appellant in the alleged dacoity except as to some evidence about the motive of
the offence, the trial Court was wrong in treating the confessional statement
of the co- accused as substantive evidence.
Mojibar
Vs The State, 20BLD (HCD) 273
Confession
Confessional
statement
The
objection on the use of certain confessional statements recorded in connection
with another case and used by the investigation officer in the instant case may
be raised at the time of trial and the admissibility of these may be decided by
the trial Court at that time. The objection on the recording of the statements
under section 161 of the Code and the admissibility of the confessional
statements cannot therefore be decided in this petition. Major (Retd) Bazlul
Huda Vs. The State, 20BLD (AD)236
Confessional
Statement
Failure
to comply with requirement of the form 6, 8 and 9 and giving a certificate in
his own hand do not vitiate the confessional statements because at best it will
mean violation or non-compliance of some circulars.
On
perusal of column 6 it is found that necessary questions were put to the condemned
prisoner and he answered them all in the affirmative. As to column 9 it appears
that this column is not applicable since the Magistrate found that the
statement made by condemned prisoner was voluntary. The State Vs. Billal
Hossain, 20BLD (HCD) 45
Confession
Confessional
statement of a co-accused-use of
Confessional
statement of one accused, even if found to be true and voluntary, whether can
be used against a co-accused.
Even
if the confessional statement of one accused is found to be true and voluntary,
still his confession cannot be used against those who are co-accused in the
case, as the basis for convicting them when there is no other evidence against
them. Dr.Ishaq Ali. Vs. The State, 13 BLD (HCD) 236
Ref:
5DLR.369; 18 DLR (West Pakistan) 112 Cited
Copies
of Statement u/s. 164 Cr.P.C before filing Police Report
An
accused is not entitled to get copies of the statement under section 164 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure before filing Police Report under section 173 of the
Code.
To
allow an accused an access to documents like the statements under section 164
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before filing charge-sheet, may prejudice
the investigation. Md. Mobarak Hossain @Jewel Vs. The State, 20BLD (HCD) 422
Non spelling out of details of the confession
Admittedly, the confessional statement was brought to the notice of the condemned-appellant during his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that during examination the inculpatory nature of confession was also pointed out to him but it was not spelt out in detail. We are of the view that non spelling out of details of the confession to the appellant at the time of his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has not been prejudiced in any way. The High Court Division was of the view that the appellant was not in any way prejudiced for this minor mistake made during his examination under section 342 of the code. [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 88]
Sole Confession
Confession as to killing the victim Mehbuba by the convict petitioner, though not corroborated by any other independent witness, even then the same can be taken to be true, voluntary and inculpatory in nature and, as such, maker of such confession can be convicted relying upon it. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the confessing accused ever took a plea that he made any retraction to the confession made. In view of the above proposition of law there is no legal ground to disbelieve the confessional statement on the ground of its truth and voluntariness. Thus the confession appears to be inculpatory as well as true and voluntary. It is now well settled that confession when it is found voluntary and true, whether retracted or not, if believed, can be the sole basis of conviction against the maker without further evidence (AKM Nazmus Sakib vs State, 12 BLC (AD) 203). [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 96]
Having gone through the confessional statement, we find that this statement is totally contrary to the statement made in UD Case No.39 of 1996 dated 22-12-1996 and GDNo.978 dated 25-12-1996. PWs 4 and 5 in no uncertain terms stated that the appellant was apprehended by both of them on the very night of the occurrence. But their evidence was belied by the statement made in UD case and GD lodged by PW 4. If the confessional statement of the appellant made under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is considered in conjunction with other evidence on record then it cannot be said that his confessional statement is true and voluntary. The confessional statement reveals that the age of the appellant was 16 years and he stated that he was a student. In the confessional statement the appellant stated to have grabbed the deceased out of fear of Nasir. The confessional statement further reveals that deceased Rowshan Ali was strangulated to death by accused Nasir. What is surprising to note here is that in the statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was recorded on 27-10-1999 the age of the appellant was shown as 42 years. This anomaly has not been dispelled by any of the Courts. If the appellant's age is below 16 years at the time of framing charge his trial is vitiated by the provisions of Children Act, 1974. [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 195]
Confession
When confessions are natural, voluntary, inculpatory and corroborative to each other thus one cannot harbour any doubt that those have been procured from them by means of coercion, duress or torture.
The Appellate Division opined that one confession was recorded at Dhaka and the other two at Sylhet by different officers. There are corroborative statements as regards supply of four grenades by accused Mufti Abdul Hannan to Bipul and Ripon of Sylhet from his Badda office and that out of the same Bipul and Ripon used one grenade killing three persons and injuring innumerable persons at the gate of Hazrat Shahjalal (R). These confessions are in- culpatory in nature and conviction can be based upon them. There is no doubt about it. That Mufti Hannan became an activist of the terrorist organization is admitted from his confession and in due course he became a leader and philosopher of the organisation is also revealed from the statement. He monitored all terrorist activities which are evident from the statement of Bipul that after the detonation he had informed Mufti Hannan that the blasting was successfully conducted. Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi alias Abul Kalam and another Vs. The State (Criminal) 19 ALR (AD) 126-141
Confession:–– Confession is taken to be true, voluntary and inculpatory in nature, a conviction can be given against the maker–– The confessions have been corroborated by circumstantial evidence proved by the witnesses. Even if there is no corroborating evidence, if a confession is taken to be true, voluntary and inculpatory in nature, a conviction can be given against the maker of the statement relying upon it subject to the conditions mentioned above. .....Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi =VS= The State, [3 LM (AD) 566]
Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section 30
The confession made by a co-accused cannot be said that it is corroborated by other evidence and, as such, it cannot be the sole basis of conviction of another co-accused. [73 DLR (AD) 264]
In the case of State vs Azharul Islam, 2011 (19) BLT (AD) 166 this Division held:
"Injured witnesses' evidence carries much weight and since there is no contradiction in his as well as in his statement given to the Magistrate and also to the investigating officer as to the material particulars and regarding the nature of injuries as inflicted upon the victim is consistent with the medical report". [73 DLR (AD) 295]
In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Naresh, (2011) SCC 324 it has been observed by the Supreme Court of India that:
"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage because such witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence." [73 DLR (AD) 295]
Moreover, this Division in several cases held that conviction of an accused can safely be based on the solitary evidence of the eye-witness when his evidence is full, complete and self contained even it may not have received corroboration from other witnesses but it stands fully corroborated by the circumstances of the case and medical evidence on record. Its fullness and completeness are enough to justify the conviction. This view finds support in the case of Abdul Hai Sikder vs State, 43 DLR (AD) 95. [73 DLR (AD) 295]
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 154
There is neither any law nor any principle on the basis of which the testimony of another witness can be ignored or rejected, because the informant had made an omission to mention about the fact which the witness stated in his deposition. ......(40) [73 DLR 18]
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 164(3)
Acceptability of a confession depends on the satisfaction of confession recording Magistrate. [73 DLR 18]
Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898)
Section 164(3)
Judicial confession if it is found to be true and voluntary can form the sole basis of conviction as against the maker of the same. The defence has been able to make a confusion that the confession made by accused Likhon was not made voluntarily. Accused Mojibur Rahman Likhon disclosed in his statement that “এরপর আমি ববির হাত থেকে পিস্তলটা কেড়ে নিয়ে তার পিঠে একটা গুলি করি” which was not corroborate by post mortem report and as per statement of PW 4. Prosecution has failed to prove that the judicial confession made by condemned- prisoner is true and voluntary one. It is not wise to rely only upon so-called statement of the condemned-prisoner made under section 164 of the Code. [73 DLR (2021) 630]
High Court Division
comments on the trial Court-When to be expunged?
After going through the
order sheet of the Court of the Magistrate and copies of the confessional
statements the High Court Division took the view, perhaps reasonably, that the
confessional statements must have been with the case record. Since the
provisions of sections 164 and 364 Cr. P.C. were substantially complied with,
the learned Judge ought to have taken this evidence under section 80 of the
Evidence Act even without examining the recording Magistrate. The Appellate
Division, held that the High Court Division did not make any harsh comment
against the petitioner on this account.
The comment of the High
Court Division that the petitioner rejected the petition of the Public
Prosecutor for examining the recording Magistrate and the Police Officer who
re- corded the F.IR. of the case "rather hastily". was rather harsh
and this could have been couched in a softer manner but nevertheless the
expression of disappointment of the High- Court Division on this score is
natural in the circumstances of the case and the comments made in the impugned
judgment, except being harsh, cannot for that matter attract the ex- treme
measure of expungement. Mr. Munshi Mohammad Ali Vs. The State and 16BLD(AD)130
Ref:14 BLD 332-Cited
Confession:- Confession is taken to be true, voluntary and inculpatory in nature, a conviction can be given against the maker- The confessions have been corroborated by circumstantial evidence proved by the witnesses. Even if there is no corroborating evidence, if a confession is taken to be true, voluntary and inculpatory in nature, a conviction can be given against the maker of the statement relying upon it subject to the conditions mentioned above. .....Mufti Abdul Hannan Munshi =VS= The State, [3 LM (AD) 566]
Confession-What statement constitutes confession. -The Supreme Court held that it is a now well-settled that a statement in order to amount to "confession" must either admit in terms of the offence, or at any rate sub- stantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of an incriminating fact, however, grave is not by itself a confession. A statement which contains an exculpatory assertion of some facts, which if true, would negative the offence alleged, cannot amount to a confession. See Pakala Narayana v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47: Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 94; Om Prakash v. State of U. P, AIR 1960 SC 409. Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1167.
Confession by inducement or promise. Section 24 excludes confession caused by certain inducements, threats and promises. If the confession is caused by inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by Section 21 the whole of confession is excluded. Proof of not only the admission of the offence but also the admission of every other incriminating fact such as the motive, the preparation and the subsequent conduct is excluded by Section 24 of the Evidence Act.
A. Nagesia v. Bihar State, AIR 1966 SC 119: (1965) 3 SCR 567: 1965 Mad WN 216: (1965) 2 SCA 367: 1965 All WR (HC) 648: 1965 All Cri R 451: 1965 BLJR 865: (1965) 2 SCWR 750: 1966 Cri LJ 100: (1966) 1 SCJ 193: 1966 Mah LJ 113: 1966 MPLJ 49.
Confession-Method-Judicial custody. In the present case appellant was kept in jall custody for three days from October 25 to October 28, 1966 and on October 28, the Executive Magistrate made the preliminary questioning of the appellant, gave him a warning and sent him back to the District Jail at Sangli. On the next day the appellant was produced before the Magistrate and the confession was recorded. The Supreme Court held that it is clear that appellant had spent four days in judicial custody and he was not under the influence of the investigating agency for atleast 4 days. Again he had 24 hours to think after he was told by the Magistrate that he was not bound to make any confession and if he made one it would be used against him. The confes. sion voluntary as held by trial Court and High Court.
Abdul Razak v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1970 SC 283: (1969) 2 SCJ 870: 1970 All WR (HC) 43: (1969) Mad LJ (Cri) 862: 1970 SC Cri R 21: (1970) 1 SCA 835: (1970) 1 SCR 551: 1970 MPLJ 931: 1970 Mah LJ 747.
Confession recorded by Taluka Magistrate. It is no doubt true that it would have been better for police to get the confession recorded by a judicial Magistrate but that by itself is not sufficient to enable us to discard the sole testimony of the P. W. 20. P. W. 20 has also stated that he was appointed as Magistrate in 1952 and he has been specially empowered to record the confes- sion. Thus P. W. 20 was a Magistrate of sufficient experience. Having carefully gone through evidence of the witness we are satisfied that he was fully satisfied that the confession was voluntary and was given without any duress or coercion.
Abdul Rehman v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1924: 1979 Cri LJ 1286: 1979 SCC (Cri) 518: 1979 UJ (SC) 434: 1979 Cri LR (SC) 325: 1979 All Cri R 360: (1979) 3 SCC 426: 1979 (8) Mah LR 258.
Confessional Statement in F. I. R. The confessional statement which was made by the accused to Sub-Inspector and which formed the basis of the F. I. R. was not admissible in evidence as the same was hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It has been held in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 that no part of a F. I. R. lodged by the accused with the police could be admitted into evidence if it was in the nature of a confessional statement.
K. H. Amulakh v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1972 SC 922: 1972 Cri LJ 626: (1972) SCJ 299: 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 573.
Confessional statement during duress. Where the appellant had definitely pleaded that the statement was not his voluntary statement but was taken by P. W. 10 under duress. Such a statement was, therefore, clearly inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. But apart, even if the statement is admissible having regard to the circumstances mentioned above, its probative value is precious little.
Brijbasi Lal v. State of M. P., AIR 1979 SC 1080: 1979 Cr LR (SC) 128: 1979 Cur LJ (Cri) 162: 1979 UJ (SC) 814: 1979 Cri LJ 918: (1979) 4 SCC 521.
Extra-judiciat Confession. Supreme Court observed that the evidence about an extra-judicial confession is in the nature of things a weak piece of evidence. If the same is lacking in probability, there would be no difficulty in rejecting the same.
Jagata v. State of Haryana, AIR 1974 SC 1545: 1974 SCC (Cri) 957: 1974 Cr LJ 1010: (1974) 4 SCC 747.
Unambiguous confession-Admissible in evidence-Valuable piece of evidence. An unambiguous confession if admissible in evidence and free from suspicion suggesting its falsity, is a valuable piece of evidence which possesses a high probative force because it emanates directly from the person committing the offence. Put in the process of proof of an alleged confession the Court has to be satisfied that it voluntary, it does not appear to be the result of inducement, threat or promise as contemplated by Section 24, Indian Evidence Act and the surrounding circumstances do not indicate that it is inspired by some improper or collateral consideration suggesting that it may not be true. For this purpose the Court must scrutinise all the relevant factors, such as, the person to whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it is made and finally the actual words used.
Thimma v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1871 1970 SC Cri R 565: (1971) 1 SCJ 721: 1971 Mad L) (Cri) 336: 1971 Cri LJ 1314: (1971) 1 SCR 215.
Confession-Value of. Division Bench of the Orissa High Court held that the value of the evidence as to the confession just like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of witnesses to whom it is made. It is not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence of not in actual words but the substance were given.
Mulkraj v. State of Orissa, 1982 Cri LJ 938: (1982) 55 Cut LT 130.
Confession-Recorded by Magistrate-Examination of Magistrade whether necessary. The Supreme Court has observed that at the time of recording the confession the learned Magistrate has put to the accused all the necessary questions to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntary. He has also appended the necessary certificate. We do not accept Shri Jain's submission that the learned Magistrate should have been examined as a witness. Section 80 of the Evidence Act makes the examination of the Magistrate unnecessary. It authorises the Court to presume that the document is genuine, that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken are true and that such confession was truly taken in accordance with law. The Magistrate hassappended a certificate that he was satisfied that the confession was volun- tary. No circumstances has been brought out in the evidence justifying the calling of the Magistrate as a witness.
Madi Ganga v. State of Orissa, AIR 1981 SC 1165: 1981 Cri LJ 628.
Confession-Basing conviction on it-Requirements. It is now well-settled that in order to sustain a conviction on the basis of a confessional statement it is sufficient that the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with the contents of the confession. General corrobaration is sufficient-vide Subramanian Goundan v. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66.
Madi Ganga v. State of Orissa, AIR 1981 SC 1165 1981 Cri LJ 628: 1982 SC Cri R 10.
Confession-Tests to examine its trustworthiness. It is well-settled that a confession if voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt. Therefore, when in a capital case the prosecution demands a conviction of the accused, primarily on the basis of his confession recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C., the Court must apply a double test-
(1) Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary ?
(2) If so, whether it is true and trustworthy ?
Satisfacation of the first test is a sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence. If the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise such as is mentioned in Section 24, Evidence Act, it must be excluded and rejected brevimanu In such a case, the question of proceeding futher to apply the second test does not arise. If the first test satisfied the Court must before acting upon the confession, reach the finding that what is stated therein is true and reliable. For judging the reliability of such a confession, or for that matter of any substantive piece evidence, there is no rigid canon of universal application. Even so, one broad method which may be useful in most cases for evaluating a confession may be indicated. The Court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. If one such examination and conclusion the confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances it may be taken to have satisfied the second test.
Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1248: 1978 Cri LJ 1251: 1978 Cri App R (SC) 205: 1978 SCC (Cri) 439.
Confession-Mode of recording it-Supreme Court states that before a confessional statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be acted upon, it must be shown to be voluntary and free from police influence and that the confessional statement made by the appellant in the instant case cannot be taken into account as it suffers from serious infirmities in that (1). There is no contemporaneous record to show that the appellant was actually kept in jail as ordered on September 6, 1974 by Shri R. P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, (2) Sri R. P. Singh, who recorded the so-called confessional statement of the appellant did not question him as to why he was making the confession, and (3) there is also nothing in the statement of the said Magistrate to show that he told the appellant that he would not be remanded to the police lock up even if he did not confess his guilt. It cannot also be gain said that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypo- thesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
Devendra Pd. v. State of U. P., AIR 1978 SC 1544: 1978 Cr LJ 1678.
Whether the confession is voluntarily stated. The accused stated in his letter to the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay as to how his confes- sion was got recorded Custom Officer as under-
"From the 14th instant at 12 noon till about 3 p. m. 1 was loc ed up along in one room with some Customs Officers who continuously interrogated me, threatened and physically assaulted me to make and sign a statement prepared by them after ascertaining a few personal questions from me pertain- ing to my family and myself. 1 was not allowed to sleep during the entire night to the 14th/15th and was not allowed to see any person. The statement was written out by officers themselves in English language and it was not explained to me and my signature was obtained which I have signed in Gujrathi. As a result of this threat, coercion and complete exhaustion I had no alternative but to sign the statement after which only I was allowed to rest."
The Supreme Court observed-
"Taking note of these circumstances we would consider it extremely unsafe to regard the confession signed by the appellant as having been made by him voluntarily and therefore trustworthy. The appellant in our opinion has shown the existence of circumstances which make it appear to the Court that the confession may well have been obtained in a manner which would bring it within the ambit of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, it being undis- puted that the concerned officers of the Department of Customs were 'persons in authority' within the meaning of that expression as used in the section.
Sevanti Lal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 705.
Confession-Recorded by putting questions to the accused. The confession was recorded by a Magistrate who had not the faitest idea of how confession should be recorded. Although the Magistrate was not expected to know the facts of the case before recording the statement but he went on putting facts in question and obtained answers of them from appellant Dharambir Singh. Either the recorded confession or his statement does not show that there was no police officer present in the Court room before he recorded the confessional statement. The learned Special Judge was, therefore, fully justified in ignoring that confession.
Surendra Pal Singh v. State, 1981 All Cri R 353.
Confession made before Sarpanch of Panchayat. Accused admitted his guilt before the Sarpanch and members of the Panchayat and it was also corroborated by the witnesses and accepted by the Trial Judge. Held, High Court will not take different view on this point.
Smt. Jashmero v. State of Haryana, 1981 Cri LJ NOC 46 P & H: (1979) 81 Punj LR 420.
Confession-When excluded from considerations. The Supreme Court observed that the confession recorded by the Magistrate was recorded in the form of questions and answers. The record shows that he was virtually cross- examined and whatever he said was in answer to leading questions put by the learned Magistrate. We think the confession was rightly excluded by the High Court.
State of M. P. v. Dayaram, AIR 1981 SC 2007.
Confession-To believe one part and reject the other.-Held by the Supreme Court that it is permissible to belief one part of a confessional statement and to disbelieve another and that it is enough if the whole of the confession is tendered in evidence so that it may be open to the Court to reject the excul- patory part and to take inculpatory part into consideration if there is other evidence to prove its correctness.
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 1797.
Cases relied on-
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343: 1952 SCR 1091: Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 94: AIR 1952 SC 354; Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar, (1969) 2 SCR 1033: AIR 1969 SC 422.
Meaning of confession. The Supreme Court observed-
The Indian Evidence Act does not define "confession". For a long time the Courts in India adopted the definition of "confession" given in Art. 22 of Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence. According to that definition a confession is an admission made at anytime by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inherence that he committed that crime. This definition was discarded by the Judicial Committee in Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47, where Lord Atkin observed that "no statement that contains self exculpatory matter can amount to confession. If the excul- patory is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confess. Moreover, a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself a confession, e. g., an admission that the accused is the owner and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which caused a death with no explanation of any other man's possession."
The Supreme Court observed-These observations received the approval of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354. In State of U. P. v. Desman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125, Shah J., referred to a confession as a statement made by a person stating or suggesting the inference that he was committed a crime. Shortly put, a confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A statement which contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed.
If an admission of an accused is to be used against him, the whole of it should be tendered in evidence and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hammant Govind v. State of M. P., 1952 SCR 1091: AIR 1952 SC 354.
A Nagesia v. Bihar State, 1966 Cri LJ 100: 1965 All Cri R 451: 1965 All WR (HC) 648: 1965 BLJR 856: AIR 1966 SC 119: (1965) 3 SCR 567.
Custom Officer is not Police Officer. The Supreme Court considering the prior ruling reported in AIR 1970 SC 940, observed that even though under the new Customs Act (Act No. 52 of 1962) a Customs Officer has been invested with many powers which were not to be found in the provisions of the old Act, he cannot be regarded as a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Illias v. Collector of Customs, Madras, AIR 1970 SC 1065: 1970 Cri LJ 998: 1970 Mad LJ (Cri) 325: (1970) 1 SCJ 701.
A Customs Officer is not a member of the police force. The Supreme Court observed that a Customs Officer is not a member of the police force. He is not entrusted with the duty to maintain law and order. He is entrusted with power which specifically relates to the Collection of Customs dues and prevention of smuggling. There is no warrant for the contention that a Custom Officer is invested in the enquiry under the Sea Customs Act with all the powers with a police officer incharge of a police station has under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ramesh Chandra v. State of W. B., AIR 1970 SC 940: 1970 Cri LJ 863: (1970) 2 SCA 174: 72 Bom LR 787.
Confession made to Police Officer in a letter-Relevancy. A confessional letter written to a police officer and sent to him by post, messenger or otherwise is not outside the ban of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Sita Ram v. State of U. P., AIR 1966 SC 1906: 1966 All LJ 856: 1966 SCD 926: 1966 Cri LJ 1519: 1965 All WR (HC) 407: (1965) 1 SCWR 955.
Relied on-
R. v. Hurribole, ILR 1 Cal 207: 25 Suth WR Cr 36.
Extra-judicial confession-When considered. Extra-judicial confession are not usually considered with favour but that does not mean that such a confession coming from a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in circumstances which tend to support his statement, should not be believed.
Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1967 Cri LJ 9: AIR 1967 SC 152.
Probative value of a confession. The probative value of an admission or confession does not depend upon its communication to another, though just like any other piece of evidence, it can be admitted in evidence only on proof. The proof in the case of oral admission or confession can be offered only by witnesses who heard the admission or confession as the case may be.
Nathulal v. State of M. P., AIR 1966 SC-0: 1966 All Cri R 71: 1966 MPLJ 533: 1966 All WR (HC) 96: 1966 Cri LJ 68: (1965) 2 SCWR 464: 1965 Andh LT 215: 1965 SCD 809: (1966) 2 SCJ 172 1966 Mad LJ (Cri) 558.
Confessional statement made to Customs Officer-Effect. The Supreme Court observed that the statement is clearly admissible in evidence because it was made to a Custom Officer and it is not alleged that the police were present as that time. Confessional statements made to the Customs Officer have be held by the Supreme Court not to come within the inhibition of Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act because Customs Officers are not Police Officers within the meaning of these provisions, vide Asstt. Collector of Custom v. Vallabh Das, AIR 1965 SC 481 and R. C. Mehata v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1970 SC 940.
Hazari Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 62: (1973) 3 SCC 401.
Confession made to Deputy Superintendent of Custom is not hit by Section 25, Evidence Act. Statement made by the appellant to the Deputy Superinten- dent of Custom and Excise would not be hit by Section 25 and is admissible in Evidence unless the appellant can take advantage of Section 24 of the Evidence Act.
Badaku Joti v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1746.
Relied on-
Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 828.
Confessional Statement in F. I. R. made by accused to Police. A confessional statement contained in F. I. R. made to police is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and is not admissible.
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119.
Relied on-
K. H. Amulakh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1972 SC 922: 1972 Cri LJ 626: 1972 All Cri C 286.
Confessional statement made to Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force. Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force is not a Police Officer (Badie Vishal v. State of M. P., 1973 MPLJ 82, and Ranjit Singh v. State of M. P., 1974 Cri LJ 719). The statement given by the accused was voluntary and without any threat or inducement. Held, such statement is admissible in law.
State of M. P. v. Chandan Singh, 1980 Cri LJ 1024.
Confessional statement made to Police Patel, Bombay-Admissibility.- Under Bombay Police Act a police patel is deemed to be a police officer and confessional statement made to him, held, is not admissible.
Amar Singh v. State of Gujrat, 1980 Cri LJ NOC 84 (Guj).
Statement of co-accused.
Statement of an accused cannot be used as a substantantive evidence against the co-accused. Though is is admissible but it cannot be made a basis of conviction.
Brahmadeo Nunia v. The State, 1980 Cri LJ NOC 146 (Gau).
Confession-An admission of offence. AIR 1952 SC 354 defined a confession as "an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence". It is thus clear that an admission of a fact however incriminaing but not by itself establishing the guilt of the maker of such admission would not amount to confession within the meaning of Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act.
K. Padayuchi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 66: 1971 SCD 934: 1972 Cri LJ 11: 1972 All Cri R 140: 1972 All WR (HC) 204: (1972) I SCR 450.
Confession made to a Police Officer. Under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act no confession made to a Police Officer whether in custody or not can be proved as against the accused. But Section 27 is by way of a proviso to these sestions and a statement even by way of confession which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible as evidence against the accused in the circumstances stated in Section 27 of the Act.
Delhi Administration v. Bal Krishan, AIR 1972 SC 3: 1972 Cri LJ 1.
Proof of information under Section 27 of the Act. Section 27 of the Evidence Act permits proof of so much of the information which is given by persons accused of an offence when in the custody of a Police Officer as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered irrespective of whether such information amounts to a confession or not.
Delhi Administration v. Bal Krishan, AIR 1972 SC 3: (1972) 1 SCJ 347: 1972 Cri LJ 1: 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 205.
Confession made to Father-in-law a Police Officer. Accused made confession to his Father-in-law, who was a Police Officer, held, such confession is hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act.
Amar Singh v. State of Gulrat, 1980 Chand Cri C 88: (1979) 6 Cri LT 372: (1980) 82 Pun LR 18: 1980 Cri LJ NOC 84.
Statement made to Father-in-law, a Police Officer. Accused was arrested by the Police Officer who was his father-in-law. Before him the accused confessed that he had murdered his wife. Held, the statement is hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act.
Amar Singh v. State of Gujrat, 1980 Cri LJ NOC 84 (Guj) (DB): 1980 Cri LR (Guj) 154.
Confession of a co-accused, even when corroborated, cannot be the foundation of a conviction.
Confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of a very weak type, and that, even when corroborated, it does not by itself "amount to proof" and, as such, "cannot be made the foundation of a conviction". State Vs. Badsha Khan (1958) 10 DLR 580.
১৬৪ ধারার জবানবন্দি-শুধুমাত্র আসামীর স্বীকারোক্তিমূলক জবানবন্দির উপর গুরুত্ব না দেয়া এবং যে ম্যাজিষ্ট্রেট সনাক্তকরণ মহড়া পরিচালনা করেছেন তাকে পরীক্ষা না করাটা আসামীর খালাস পাওয়ার কোন কারণ নয় যেখানে যথেষ্ট এবং বৈধ সাক্ষ্যের উপর ভিত্তি করে দন্ড প্রদান করা হয়েছে। [আব্দুল হাশেম (মোঃ) ওরফে বাচ্চু ফকির এবং অন্যান্য বনাম রাষ্ট্র ৫২ ডিএলআর (এডি) ১১৭]
The word voluntary used in respect of means a confession not caused by inducement, threat or promise. There can be no reason on the part or the informant to meet the accused in jail other than for a particular object. The prosecution has not explained the reason. This statement can at best be treated as retraction of the earlier confession but in no case can it be treated as a voluntary confession.
State Vs. Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed (Criminal), 18 BLC (2013)-AD-210.
Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
Confession duly made at any time by one of several accused persons who are under trial jointly for the same offence can be taken into consideration under Section 30 as against the other accused persons This death reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by learned Judge of Nari-O-Shishu Nirjatan Daman Tribunal No.2, Bogra for confirmation of death sentences of condemned-prisoners. The learned Judges of High Court Division are of the view that the prosecution successfully proved the charge against accused Milon and Rabiul alias Hubul beyond all reasonable doubt but failed to prove the charge against accused Aslam, Musaddek, Helal, Mannan alias A. Mannan. In the result the death reference is accepted in part.
State Vs. Milon alias Md. Milon & others (Criminal), 18 MLR (2013)-HCD-24.
Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
A confession may be taken into consideration not only against its maker, but also against a co-accused. Thus, though such a confession may not be evidence as strictly defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, it is an element which may be taken into consideration by the criminal court.
Death reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by learned Sessions Judge, Narayangonj, for confirmation of death sentence of condemned-prisoner, convicting him under Sections 302, 34 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to death by hanging. In the light of preponderant judicial views emerging out of the authorities, the High Court Division is; of the view that the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence suffer from legal infirmities which calls for no interference by High Court Division. In result the death reference is rejected. The impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Narayangonj, is set aside. The condemned prisoner and the appellants are acquired from the charge leveled against them. All appeals preferred by the convict-appellants are allowed and they discharged from their respective bail bond.
State Vs. Kashem (absconding) (Criminal), 18 MLR (2013)-HCD-20.
Presumption would arise if the confession has been recorded in accordance with section 164 read with section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 157-The statements of witness, made long after the occurrence cannot be used as corroboration as it does not exclude the chance of false implication In the instant appeal, respondent was tried by the Metropolitan Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Dhaka to face charge under section 302 of the Penal Code for causing the death of his wife. Appellate Division held that the judgment of the High Court Division, it cannot be said that its findings in giving the respondent the benefit of doubt are erroneous or based upon misreading of the evidence on record. Rather, they are sound and based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record.
State Vs. Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed (Criminal), 18 MLR (2013)-AD-135.