Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.
Legal Services India

» Home
Sunday, December 22, 2024

Is It Safe To Rely Upon Retracted Confession For Convicting A Person?

Posted in: Judiciary
Sun, Jun 13, 21, 20:03, 4 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 4777
completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession

Let me at the very inception point out to my readers that there is no rule either in the Evidence Act or in any other law in India, at least to the best of my knowledge, which expressly forbids retracted confession for convicting a person. This itself clearly vindicates that retracted confession can be relied upon if it is found reliable and a credible explanation is forwarded by the person making the retracted confession and the concerned court is convinced of its truthfulness and authenticity.

But let me make here one thing absolutely clear:
Before relying upon retracted confession, the court must satisfy and convince itself completely about the truthfulness of the retracted confession and should corroborate his/her confession as it is unsafe to convict an accused person solely on the basis of the retracted confession. Supreme Court itself held in PK Singh v State of Manipur, AIR 1956 SC 9, Panu v State, 1978 Cr LJ 690, Abdul Ghani v State of UP, 1973 Cr LJ 280 and Shankaria v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1218 that even if a confession is inculpatory, corroboration is necessary if the confession is retracted. In Henry West Huller v State of Assam, 1985 Cri LJ 1079, it was held by Apex Court that if the retracted confession is generally corroborated by circumstantial evidence, it can be acted upon.

Moreover, retracted confession is not accorded a very high evidentiary value and is looked upon with suspicion. In a recent case – Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri & Ors v State of Gujarat 2014 (3) Crimes 79 (SC), it was held that conviction cannot be ordered on the basis of retracted confession. This alone explains that why in case of retracted confession, courts usually look for corroboration as it is highly unsafe to convict anyone on retracted confession alone without corroboration. There is no hard and fast rule that corroboration is imperative before convicting anyone but usually as a precautionary measure it has more or less become a standard procedure to not rely on retracted confession alone unless corroborated.

In Pyare Lal Bhargava v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094, the four-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But it has been also held that, A court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only a rule of prudence. It cannot even be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence that under no circumstances such a conviction can be made without corroboration, for a court may, in a particular case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act upon it without corroboration ; but it may be laid down as a general rule of practice that it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less on a retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has been corroborated in material particulars. In Puran v State of Punjab (I), AIR 1953 SC 459, it has been held by the Supreme Court that, It is a settled rule of evidence that unless a retracted confession is corroborated in material particulars, it is not prudent to base a conviction on its strength alone. In Palanisamy v State, AIR 1986 SC 593, it has been held by the Supreme Court that retracted confession without independent corroboration cannot sustain conviction.

Let me reiterate here again very strongly that there is no rigid rule that retracted confession cannot be acted upon without corroboration. There have been such cases where conviction has been based on retracted confession alone.

In E v Dhani, 20 Cr LJ 721, it was held that, Sometimes an accused is found to resile from his confession in the Committing Magistrate's Court or in the Sessions Court. Generally where an accused adheres at the trial to a previous judicial or extra judicial confession, it may, if the Court believes it, be acted upon without corroboration.

In State of Maharashtra v PK Pathak, AIR 1980 SC 1224 as also in State of Delhi v Vijai Pal, AIR 1980 SC 1621, it was held by the Apex Court that, The settled view of the Supreme Court of India is that as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into a rule of law, a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated, but it does not necessarily mean that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from the circumstances discovered after the confession was made.

Before proceeding further, it is imperative to understand precisely the meaning of retracted confession. Advocate Batuk Lal in his well researched book 'The Law Of Evidence' rightly points out that, A retracted confession is a statement made by an accused person before the trial begins, by which he admits to have committed the offence, but which he repudiates at the trial. After the commission of a serious offence some police officer makes investigation into the matter, examines witnesses and the accused.

If in his opinion the accused is proved to have committed the offence, he submits a report (charge-sheet) to a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter. The court takes evidence and examines the accused. If during the investigation, the accused on being examined by the police officer is willing to admit the guilt, the police officer sends the accused to some Magistrate for recording his statement. The Magistrate after being satisfied that the accused is making the statement voluntarily, takes his statement. If the accused admits in his statement to have committed the offence, this recorded statement by the Magistrate may be proved at the trial.

When the trial begins the accused on being asked as to whether he committed the crime, he may say that he did not commit the crime. The question may again be put to him as to whether he made statement before a Magistrate during the investigation confessing the guilt. He may deny to have made the statement at all or he may say that he made that statement due to undue influence of the police. In this case the confession made by the accused to the Magistrate before the trial begins, is called retracted confession.

In Brij Lal v State of MP, AIR 1970 SC 1080, it was held by the Supreme Court that, Retracted confession is a statement made by a person before the trial of a case begins by which he admits to have committed the offence, but which he repudiates at a later stage at the trial. In Gour Chandra Das v R, ILR 54 Mad 75, it was held that, A confession is called retracted confession when it is withdrawn by the maker at the time of trial before passing of sentence against him. The Indian Evidence Act makes no distinction between a retracted and unretracted confession. Both are equally admissible and may be taken into consideration against the accused.

Also, in Pyare Lal Bhargava v State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094, it has been held by Apex Court that, A retracted confession is, therefore, relevant evidence, though less reliance may be placed on such evidence. But that relates only to weight of evidence and not relevancy and admissibility. Even as regards weight to be attached to such evidence, there is no provision in the Indian Evidence Act which prohibits a conviction to be based on a retracted confession without any corroborative evidence.

Further, in Swaran Singh Ratan Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, the Supreme Court laid down that, In law it is always open to the court to convict an accused on his confession itself though he has retracted it at a later stage. Nevertheless, usually courts require some corroboration to the confessional statement before convicting an accused person on such statement. What amount of corroboration would be necessary in such a case would always be a question of fact to be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case. This has been followed and abided in Kehar Singh v Delhi Administration, AIR 1988 SC 1883 and State of Maharashtra v Damu Gopinath Shinde, AIR 2000 SC 1691.

While craving my readers indulgence, let me bring out here that the amount of corroboration necessary for sustaining conviction is a question of fact and the court concerned decides it in the light of particular circumstances of each case. In Swaran Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, Sher Singh v State (1969) 71 Punj LR (D) 198 and also in Bhuboni Sahu v The King AIR 1949 PC 257, it was held that the fact of retraction puts the court on enquiry as to its voluntary character, its truth and consequent evidentiary value.

If on considering the circumstances the court believes that it is true, it can base conviction. If it believes that the confession may be involuntary or untrue it may require corroboration. The amount of corroboration necessary for sustaining conviction is a question of fact to be decided in the light of circumstances of each case. It has been rightly pointed out in Gurudev v State (1968) Cr LJ 244 that, In practice, it is submitted, the courts do not rely upon retracted confession without fullest and strongest corroboration as to factum of crime and as to identity of the accused.

Now the pertinent question arises : To what extent should the retracted confession be corroborated ? To answer this, let us look at some important Apex Court rulings which shed important light in this regard. In State of Orissa v Kebalanand Patnaik, (1969) Cr LJ 1174, the Apex Court held that:
It is not, however, necessary that the corroboration from independent evidence be in all details. It is enough if it is substantially corroborated by independent evidence. Also, in State of UP v Boota Singh, AIR 1978 SC 1770, it has been held by the Supreme Court that, A retracted confession can be acted upon only if substantially corroborated by independent evidence. It is not necessary that it should be corroborated in each material particular. It is sufficient if there is a general corroboration of important incidents mentioned in the confession.

In yet another case – Parmananda Pegu v State of Assam, AIR 2004 SC 4197, it was held by Supreme Court that a retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless corroborated in material particulars. As not a single circumstance or fact corroborated the facts revealed in confession and confessional statement was in contradiction of medical evidence it was held that conviction solely on the basis of such confession was not proper.

Further, in Latu Mukhi v State of Orissa, (1969) Cr LJ 1172, the accused made an extra-judicial confession before the witness that he assaulted his wife. The witness told about the confession to another person who went to the house of the accused and found the body lying with bleeding injuries. Later on the said extra-judicial confession was retracted. The Court held that the fact that the other person, whom the witness told about the confession and who was also examined as witness, saw the body lying with bleeding injuries was sufficient corroboration.

Also, in Pakkirisamy v State of TN, AIR 1998 SC 107, the accused was in acute shortage of money and the onerous burden of marrying his unmarried sister was also on him. It was alleged that he had murdered his master's wife and took away jewellery and other valuables. He himself also made confession in front of village administrative officer but pleaded innocence before the trial court. There was no eye witness and there was only circumstantial evidence.

His confession was, however, corroborated by recovery of jewellery and other valuables at his instance. He had also absconded after the crime happened and was unable to give any satisfactory explanation in his own defence. His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court.

It is a matter of simple prudence that where the accused himself retracts his confession and does not stick firmly to his confession made earlier, it clearly implies that the accused credibility is itself in doubt and in such a case even the court itself would dither in basing its conviction on such a retracted confession. In Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh v Republic of India, AIR 2011 SC 1436, the Supreme Court reiterated that:
A judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable, more so, when such a confession is retracted, the conviction cannot be based on such retracted judicial confession. But as I said earlier there is no hard and fast rule that no conviction can be based on retracted confession and I had even pointed out many such cases where conviction was accorded even in case of retracted confession. It is just as a matter of prudence and precaution that courts should insist on corroboration from independent evidence in case of retracted confession.

I would infact now quote a case where Supreme Court has accorded full approval to retracted confession and admitted that non-retracted confession is a rarity in criminal cases and to retract is the right of confessor and a judicial confession cannot be jettisoned just because it is a retracted one.

In a landmark case – Tamil Nadu v Kutty @ Laksmi Narasimhan, AIR 1964 SC 2778, Tamil film actress Rani Padmini and her mother were butchered in their flat in Madras and their driver, cook and watchman were charged with murder. The confessions of the two of the accused were recorded by Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC but they were later retracted by the accused.

The Sessions Judge, however, relied on the retracted confessions and found all the three guilty under Section 302 of IPC. However, the High Court overturned the conviction on the grounds that the confessions were retracted and that the recovery of stolen articles was made before the confessions were made. On appeal by the state of Tamil Nadu against acquittals by the High Court, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and restored the trial judge's verdict and held that,  It is not the law that once a confession was retracted the court should presume that the confession is tainted. As a matter of practical knowledge we can say that non-retracted confession is a rarity in criminal cases.

To retract from confession is the right of the confessor and all the accused against whom confessions were produced by the prosecution have invariably adopted that right. It would be injudicious to jettison a judicial confession on the mere premise that its maker has retracted from it. The court has a duty to evaluate the evidence concerning the confession by looking at all aspects. The twin test of a confession is to ascertain whether it was voluntary and true. Once those tests are found to be positive the next endeavour is to see whether there is any other reason which stands in the way of acting on it. Even for that, retracting the confession is not the ground to throw the confession overboard. All the courts in India before jettisoning a confession merely on the ground of its being a retracted confession must keep in mind what the highest court of India – Supreme Court held in this landmark case and try to always adhere by it.

It is imperative to point out here what the Law Commission feels in this regard. The 14th Report of the Law Commission of India observed that, There is no statutory requirement that the confession of an accused person, later retracted should be corroborated before it is acted upon. In a large number of cases, prisoners who have made lengthy and detailed confessions duly recorded under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, and have reiterated them in committing Magistrate's court, resile from these confessions in the court of sessions... Judicial decisions have laid down the rule that while a conviction on a retracted confession is not illegal, yet prudence dictates that a conviction should be based on such a confession, only if it is corroborated by independent testimony.

Supreme Court itself held in K Aruna Kumari v Govt of AP AIR 1988 SC 227 that:
Retracted confession need not be totally rejected. It has to be considered in the context of various factors, such as whether the confession was untrue and whether there is any independent corroboration for the confession in it general particulars.

In Sarvan Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, it was held by the Apex Court that:
In law it is always open to the court to convict an accused on his confession itself though he has retracted it at a later stage. Nevertheless usually courts require some corroboration to the confessional statement before convicting an accused person on such a statement. What amount of corroboration is necessary in such a case would always be a question of fact to be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case.

Even if there is no independent corroboration, conviction can still be ordered by the court if it is satisfied that the retracted confession is bona fide and can be relied on. Let me also point out here what Advocate Batuk Lal points out in his book 'The Law Of Evidence' that:
The rule of prudence requires that a confession must be corroborated before conviction can be based upon it. But the rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused person in the crime must be separately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from the fact and circumstances discovered after the confession was made.

If the rule required that each and every circumstances mentioned in the confessional statement must be separately and independently corroborated, that the rule would be meaningless in as much as the independent evidence itself would afford sufficient basis for conviction and it would be unnecessary to call the confession in aid. Very rightly so. A conviction can be based on retracted confession but it has to be done most cautiously and after being fully satisfied of its utility!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Legal Services India

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Rahendra Baglari v. Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M) writ petitioner for adjoining a Judicial Magistrate and the High Court and its Registry as Respondents to his plea against the order passed by the said Magistrate.
Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal vs.Uttarakhand long standing or established status quo brought about by judgments interpreting local or state laws, should not be lightly departed from.
Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur apart from High Court at Mumbai but on the contrary UP which has maximum pending cases in India
It is most shocking to see that a peaceful, one of the most developed and most prosperous state like Maharashtra has 4 high court benches at Panaji, Nagpur, Aurangabad and Kolhapur
I am neither a member nor supporter of BJP or any other political party nor a member of any of BJP's affiliated organizations like the RSS or VHP or any other organization.
Kirti vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. It was also made clear that any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties.
Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) on December 28, 2020 had expressed shock and deep concern on the arbitrary, illegal and brazen exercise of brute power by the police against lawyers, including the search conducted at the premises of an advocate representing some of the accused in the North-East Delhi riots cases.
media trial during criminal investigation interferes with administration of justice and hence amounts to contempt of court as defined under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Jamal v. Maharashtra dismissed a plea filed by the National President of BJP Minority Morcha – Jamal Anwar Siddiqui seeking 'X' category security.
Duroply Industries Limited and anr. Vs Ma Mansa Enterprises Private Limited in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction has recalled its own order of an injunction passed in a trademark dispute as the Judge presiding over the case had appeared for one party in respect of the same trademark in the past.
At the outset, it must be stated rather disconcertingly that it is India's misfortune that UP which has the maximum population more than 23 crore as Yogi Adityanath
At the outset, it has to be stated without mincing any words that it merits no reiteration that Judges age for retirement must be now increased to 75
Rajeev Bhardwaj v. H.P while dismissing a plea seeking a declaration of a sitting Judge's dissenting view as Coram non-judice and non est in the eyes of law.
Adv KG Suresh vs UOI has declared as unconstitutional the bar on lawyers representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals constituted under the Maintenance Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (Maintenance Act).
Bar Council of India ensured that there is an entrance exam now for all those lawyers who want to practice which has to be cleared before lawyers can start practicing.
It is a matter of grave concern that while our Constitution enshrines the right to equality as postulated in Article 14 but in practice what we witness is just the reverse.
seeking interim bail/parole for the under-privileged and under-trial prisoners/convicts keeping in view the terrible havoc unleashed by the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
When an intellectual giant like Fali Sam Nariman whom I personally rate as the world's top jurist and it is not just me but his extremely impeccable credentials are acknowledged in legal field, it is not just India but the whole world which listens to him in silence
Treasa Josfine vs Kerala that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Committee to suggest reforms in our criminal justice system which has been facing repeated criticism for its various drawbacks
Congress government's rule in Centre, Kapil Sibal who was Union Law Minister had written very categorically to UP Government for creating a high court bench for West UP at Meerut
Thabir Sagar vs Odisha the practice of Advocate's clerks filing affidavits on behalf of parties is unacceptable. Such a practice is in gross violation of Rule 26 of the Orissa High Court Rules. It has therefore rightly directed its Registry to ensure that steps are taken forthwith to stop the practice of accepting such affidavits
COVID situation in UP, the Allahabad High Court has issued revised fresh guidelines for the functioning of all the Courts and Tribunals subordinate to it.
amended its rules to make criticism and attack of Bar Council decisions by members a misconduct and ground for disqualification or suspension or removal of membership of a member from the Bar Council.
CJI NV Ramana who was appointed as the 48th CJI on 6th April, 2021 and took oath as CJI on 24th April 2021 has very rightly expressed his concern on the social media noise and how it adversely impacts the institutions also like judiciary to a great extent which actually should not be the case.
At the crucial meeting of the Central Action Committee. of more than 20 districts of Bar Association of West UP held at Aligarh
Why UP which is among the largest States, has maximum population more than 24 crore which is more than even Pakistan
When finances are needed for the purpose of improving the judicial system at the lower levels, there is reluctance to make such finances available.
rarely ever booked and made to face the consequences which only serves to further encourage men in uniform to take it for granted to indulge in worst custodial torture
Tarun Saxena vs Union of India as ultra vires Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 which bars lawyers from representing parties in matters before the Maintenance Tribunals
Dhanbad district of Jharkhand was mowed down by an autorickshaw has sent shivers down the spine. The ghastly incident happened on morning of July 28 near the Magistrate colony of Dhanbad that was close to the Judge's residence.
Suman Chadha & Anr. vs. Central Bank of India in that the wilful breach of the undertaking given to the Court can amount to Contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
Rajasthan High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts 2020 which shall be applicable to the proceeding of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and all the Subordinate Courts of the Rajasthan with immediate effect.
Arun Singh Chauhan v/s MP deprecate the conduct of a practicing advocate who chose not to answer the repeated queries of the Court pertaining to the maintainability of his petition seeking issuance of a writ of quo warranto and regarding the non-impleadment of a necessary party
Dr.Mukut Nath Verma vs UoI Allahabad High Court imposed Rs 5 lakh costs on an advocate Dr Mukut Nath Verma after concluding that he unauthorisedly filed a writ petition on behalf of suspended and absconding IPS officer Mani Lal Patidar and also levelled serious allegations against state authorities and thereby misleading the Court.
Anil JS vs Kerala that instances of allegations about the police disrespecting the citizens were arriving at its doors with alarming regularity and therefore issued certain general directions in its judgment.
If there is one Judge on whom I have blind faith for his exemplary conduct throughout his brilliant career and who can never favour wrongly even his own son
Indianisation of our legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective.
the gang war of different gangs have now reached right up to the court premises itself which are supposed to be the holiest shrines for getting justice.
It is not just for enjoying life or going for some holiday trip that lawyers of West UP repeatedly keep going on strike since last many decades.
CM Yogi Adityanath UP has progressed by leaps and bounds which one certainly cannot deny but why is it that it has just one High Court Bench only and that too just approximately 200 km away at the city famously called Nawab City
Just changing name of Allahabad to Prayagraj won't change the ground reality. It is a proven fact that High Court is still called Allahabad High Court and not Prayagraj High Court.
It is most shocking that all the Chief Justices of India from 1947 till 2000 were never shocked nor were any world famous jurist like Nani Ardeshir Palkhiwala, Ram Jethmalani, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan among many others
Raggu Baniya @ Raghwendra vs UP has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to instruct the District Magistrates of all the districts to re-evaluate the cases for remission after 14 years of incarceration even if appeals in such cases are pending in the High Court.
Union Minister of State for Law and Justice – SP Singh Baghel who is also an MP from Agra again in Western UP and who just recently took over has made it clear that his ministry was open to the setting up of a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Western UP.
Anil Kumar and Anr. Vs Amit that the practice of advocates acting as power of attorney holders of their clients and also as advocates in the matter, is contrary to the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Shashank Singh vs/ Honourable High Court of Judicature at Allahabad that under Article 233 of the Constitution of India, a Judicial Officer regardless of his or her previous experience, as an Advocate, cannot apply and compete for appointment to any vacancy in the post of District Judge.
It must be stated at the very outset that it is quite bewildering and baffling to see that the state of UP which Ban ki moon who is the former UN Secretary General had slammed as the rape and crime capital of India
most powerfully raised vocally the legitimate demand for a High Court Bench in West UP which is the crying need of the hour also.
Top