IMPORTANT POINT
To be assured of truth of confession, as a rule of prudence, Court should look to corroboration from other evidence.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 365 and 302-Kidnapping and killing of two minor boys-Conviction of appellant and other absconding accused and death sentence by trial Court and upheld by High Court-Appeal-Case was based on circumstantial evidence and confession-Circumstance of deceased last seen in company of accused was against absconding accused and no witness named the appellant-Recovery of silver chain which one of the deceased had on his person was at instance of absconding accused-Extra judicial confession of accused-appellant made in presence of Executive Magistrate before PWs 25, 26 and 28 was unreliable and did not inspire confidence to be credible-Evidence credited doubt whether PWs 25, 26 and 28 were within the hearing distance from accused and did really hear what accused said-Retracted judicial confession-Procedural requirements were fulfilled by Magistrate-Court to consider if there were circumstances to cast doubt on voluntary nature of confession-To be assured of truth of confession, Court should look to corroboration-No corroboration to retracted confession of appellant-Confession by appellant that he killed boy by strangulation was contrary to medical evidence which showed death was due to head injury-It would not be safe to convict appellant solely on alleged confession-Conviction was liable to be set aside. (Paras 7, 8, 11, 14, 24 to 26)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 164-Retracted confession recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C.-Court should see whether there were circumstances appearing from record which may cast doubt on voluntary nature of confession-As a rule of prudence Court should look to corroboration-Court should have assurance from all angles that retracted confession was infact voluntary and it must have been true.
       Held : The Court, called upon to consider the evidence against the accused, should still see whether there are any circumstances appearing from the record which may cast a doubt on the voluntary nature of the confession. The endeavour of the Court should be to apply its mind to the question whether the accused was free from threat, duress or inducement at the time of making the confession. In doing so, the Court should bear in mind, the principle enunciated in Pyare Lal vs. State of Rajasthan [(1963) Supp.1 SCR 689] that under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, a stringent rule of proof as to the existence of threat, duress or inducement should not be applied and a prima facie opinion based on evidence and circumstances may be adopted as the standard laid down. To put it in other words, "on the evidence and the circumstances in a particular case it may appear to the Court that there was a threat, inducement or promise, though the said fact is not strictly proved". Having thus reached a finding as to voluntary nature of a confession, the truth of the confession should then be tested by the Court. The fact that the confession has been made voluntarily, free from threat and inducement, can be regarded as presumptive evidence of its truth. Still, there may be circumstances to indicate that the confession cannot be true wholly or partly in which case it loses much of its evidentiary value. In order to be assured of the truth of confession, this Court, in a series of decisions, has evolved a rule of prudence that the Court should look to corroboration from other evidence. However, there need not be corroboration in respect of each and every material particular. Broadly, there should be corroboration so that the confession taken as a whole fits into the facts proved by other evidence. In substance, the Court should have assurance from all angles that the retracted confession was, in fact, voluntary and it must have been true. (Paras 16 to 18)

JUDGMENT

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.-The appellant Paramananda Pegu along with Jitu Pegu were charged under Sections 365 and 302 IPC for abducting and killing two minor boys, namely, Robindra Taid and Keshav Taid, aged 6 and 10 years respectively on June 28, 1999. After trial, they were convicted and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Dhemaji by his judgment dated 04.03.2002. On appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. This appeal has been preferred by Parmananda Pegu only. It appears that the other convict Jitu Pegu is absconding. As per the prosecution case, the victim boys were initially kidnapped/abducted with a view to demand ransom from their relatives but when the accused suspected that the villagers were approaching in search of the boys, the accused decided to kill them.

2. The genesis of the case began with a report which was lodged with Gogamukh Police Post on the morning of June 29, 1999 by Basanti Taid (P.W.5), the mother of Robindra. She stated that her son Robindra and her husband s brother s son by name Keshav who was residing with her, could not be traced since 5.30 P.M. of the previous day despite a search made and that on the morning of the following day, the dead body of Keshav was found in a stream beneath a damaged boat but her son Robindra was still untraceable. Investigation was then taken up by Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.29). He recovered the dead body of Keshav at the place pointed out by P.W.5 and others. He then conducted inquest on the dead body of Keshav and prepared a report to which PWs 17 and 18 were signatories. The body was sent to Dhemaji Civil Hospital on the same day i.e. 29.6.1999 for postmortem examination. The postmortem of the body of Keshav revealed that he was strangulated to death.

3. The prosecution case then runs as follows:

By interrogating the friends of the victim boys who were playing with them in the evening of 28th June, 1999, the I.O. suspected Jitu, who by then left the village Baligaon. Having got information on the next day that he was at village Majuli, PW 22 arrested and interrogated him Jitu narrated that he, the appellant Parmananda and four others formed themselves into a group named as "All Assam Tiger Force" and kidnapped and murdered the boys. The I.O. then arrested the appellant and others named by Jitu on 1.7.1999 itself. Pursuant to the disclosure made by Jitu and on being led by him, PW22 recovered the dead body of Robindra on 01.07.1999 from the mud embankment at a bamboo grove. PWs 17 and 18 witnessed the same. Accused Jitu also took the police and other villagers to the place from where the body of Keshav was recovered. On 4.7.1999, Jitu led the I.O. and others to the place where the silver chain of deceased Robindra was hidden. The silver chain was identified by PW5 as one worn by Robindra and the same was seized in the presence of PW4 and others. On 4.7.1999, the accused, at the instance of the police, recreated the scene of crime in the presence of Shri C.R. Das, Executive Magistrate (who died and could not be examined) and other villagers viz. PWs 25, 28 and 29. This was treated as extra-judicial confession. The post mortem of the dead body of Robindra was done by the Senior Medical Officer on 2.7.1999 - PW 23. He found the dead body in a decomposed state. Rigor mortis was absent. Eyes bulged out and got damaged. The tongue was in a protruded position and mouth was half open. There was no vivid wound or bruise over the skin. There was no ligature mark over the body. Due to decomposition simple abrasions could not be found. On internal examination he found fracture in the mid part of the parietal bones and the blood clot on the mid part of the upper surface of the brain. The Medical Officer opined that the cause of death was the head injury. The accused were produced before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhemaji (P.W.22) for recording the confessional statement. The Magistrate, after following the due procedure, recorded the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1003

IMPORTANT POINTTo be assured of truth of confession, as a rule of prudence, Court should look to corroboration from other evidence.

Cases Referred (5)

IMPORTANT POINT
To be assured of truth of confession, as a rule of prudence, Court should look to corroboration from other evidence.