A retracted confession of an accused is admissible against his co-accused under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Confession - Retracted confession - Admissibility and relevance against co-accused - Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Confession of an accused affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession - Confession of Prem, co-accused, was retracted by him in the Court of Session - Held, that the retracted confession of Prem was admissible against the appellant under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant and one Prem were tried for the murder of Nirmala Devi, wife of Banwari Lal, a practising lawyer at Rupar. The appellant was sentenced to death while Prem was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant and Prem appealed against their conviction and sentence to the High Court of Punjab. Their appeals were dismissed and their conviction and sentence were affirmed by the High Court. The appellant obtained from this Court special leave to appeal and in the present appeal the only question for consideration is whether the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the murder of Nirmala Devi.
Finding of the Court:

The confession of Prem was voluntary and true and had been corroborated in material particulars regarding the general story told by him in his confession. The other question which now remains for consideration is whether the confession received material corroboration connecting the appellant with the murder of Nirmala Devi.
Issues: 1. Whether the retracted confession of Prem was admissible against the appellant? 2. Whether the confession of Prem was voluntary and true? 3. Whether the confession of Prem had been corroborated in material particulars regarding the general story told by him and in material particulars tending to connect the appellant with the murder of the deceased?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that where more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. 2. The confession of Prem was voluntary and true as it was made after taking various precautions to ensure that it was not made under any influence or temptation and was corroborated by his statement to the Committing Magistrate under S. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The confession of Prem had been amply corroborated in both respects. Recovery of the ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the appellant incriminated him to the fullest extent and lent the strongest corroboration to the confession of Prem from which it was apparent that no other person than the appellant could have murdered Nirmala Devi.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

S. JAFER IMAM J. : The appellant and one Prem were tried for the murder of Nirmala Devi, wife of Banwari Lal, a practising lawyer at Rupar. The appellant was sentenced to death while Prem was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The appellant and Prem appealed against their conviction and sentence to the High Court of Punjab. Their appeals were dismissed and their conviction and sentence were affirmed by the High Court. The appellant obtained from this Court special leave to appeal and in the present appeal the only question for consideration is whether the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced for the murder of Nirmala Devi. The case of Prem is not before us.

2. At Rupar, Banwari Lal practised as a lawyer. His wife, the deceased Nirmala Devi lived with him there with their child, eight months old. With them also lived Banwari Lal s sister Vina, a girl of about 16 to 17 years of age. Banwari Lal had employed Prem as a servant about four months before the murder of Nirmala Devi on February 12, 1957. This Prem was a youngster of about fourteen years of age at that time. According to the prosecution, he was an associate of the appellant who was posted at Rupar in the capacity of a foot-constable in the police force. The appellant and Prem became friendly and it is said that the appellant had an eye on the ornaments of the deceased Nirmala Devi, which she was in the habit of wearing when she went out. The deceased was a young person in her twenties and of good character. She used to be left alone in the house with her child, when Banwari Lal went to court and Vina went to school. Prem, however, used to remain at the house. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant in conspiracy with Prem took advantage of the deceased being alone in the house, when the appellant went upstairs and killed Nirmala Devi and stole her ornaments, while Prem remained downstairs with her child. Vina had returned from school round about 12-30 in the afternoon as it was the recess time. At that time Nirmala Devi was in the drawing room feeding her child. Prem was also at the house at that time. Vina again returned to the house at about 3-45 p.m. She enquired from Prem as to where Nirmala Devi was and was told by him that he did not know as he himself had been absent from the house. Vina, thereafter, went upstairs to the kitchen to take her food. Banwari Lal had returned from court at about 3-15 p.m., earlier than usual, as he had to attend an election meeting at the Municipal Office. He was accompanied by a pleader Sudarshan Kumar Jain who was going to Chandigarh. He had intended to give him a cup of tea, but finding the door leading through the staircase to the residentia1 portion locked and thinking that his wife was not at home, he and his friend left for the Municipal Hall. Banwari Lal returned to his house at about 4-45 p. m. He enquired from Prem as to where his wife was and was informed by him that she had gone out. He went upstairs and saw his sister Vina eating her food. On opening the drawing room, however, Banwari Lal was stunned to find his wife lying dead on the floor in a pool of blood. He noticed several injuries on her and that some of her jewellery was missing. He proceeded to the police station almost opposite to his house and lodged a First Information Report about the murder at 5 p.m.

3. There can be no manner of doubt that an audacious and a brutal murder of a young and a defenceless person had taken place with the intention of robbbing her of her ornaments. The fact of murder as been amply proved and has not been seriously questioned. The only matter for consideration is whether the evidence established that the deceased Nirmala Devi was murdered by the appellant with the assistance of Prem.

4. The evidence upon which the prosecution relied for conviction is the confession of Prem, the statement of the appellant which led to the recovery of the ornaments belonging to Nirmala Devi from the possession of one Raj Ra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document