1. Murder and causing evidence to disappear — Charges under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 276
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.R.Mudholkar : K.C.Das Gupta : P.B.Gajendragadkar
Babu Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 121 , 140 of 1962
Date of Decision : 8/28/62
Advocates Appeared: Dhebar K.H. : Edna O.P. : Khanna B.K. : Menon P.D. : Sachthey K.N.
Advocates:
B.K.Khanna, K.N.Sachthey, O.P.Edna, P.D.MENON, R.H.Dhebar
B.K.Khanna, K.N.Sachthey, O.P.Edna, P.D.MENON, R.H.Dhebar
Confessions are inadmissible if the recording magistrate's independence is compromised by assisting the investigation or if procedural safeguards under Section 364 CrPC are ignored and insufficient time is given to the accused to reflect after police custody.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34 and 201 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Sections 164, 364 and 533 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 80 - Recording of confessional statements - Procedural irregularities - Voluntariness of confession - Magistrate assisting investigation by attesting recovery memos - Lack of sufficient time for accused to reflect after police custody - Confessions held not voluntary and excluded from evidence. (Paras 8-19)
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 364(3) - Requirement for magistrate to make a memorandum when confession is not recorded by him personally - Non-compliance with this safeguard raises issues regarding the validity and voluntariness of the confession. (Paras 9, 13)
(C) Voluntariness of Confession - Magistrate who has actively assisted the investigation by attesting recovery memos should not record confessions of the accused in the same case to maintain judicial independence and avoid the appearance of police influence. (Paras 10, 18)
(D) Police Custody - Where an accused is kept in police custody for a prolonged period, a short interval before recording a confession is insufficient to ensure the mind is free from fear or police influence. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
Two individuals were charged with the murder of a family member and the subsequent disappearance of the dead body. The prosecution relied on the recovery of the body and stolen articles, and confessional statements recorded by a magistrate. The magistrate had previously assisted the police by attesting recovery memos. The accused were kept in police custody for a significant period before their confessions were recorded, with only a brief interval provided for reflection.
Findings of Court:
The confessions were not voluntary due to the magistrate's involvement in the investigation, the prolonged police custody, and the failure to follow procedural safeguards under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Without these confessions, the charge of murder could not be sustained. However, the recovery of the body from the house of one of the accused was sufficient to sustain a conviction for causing disappearance of evidence.
Issues: Whether the confessional statements were recorded in compliance with the law and whether they were voluntary and admissible as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession is not voluntary if the recording magistrate has compromised his independence by assisting the police in the investigation. Furthermore, procedural lapses in recording (such as the lack of a required memorandum) and insufficient time given to the accused to reflect after police custody vitiate the voluntariness of the confession.
Result: Appeal of one accused allowed and he was acquitted of all charges; appeal of the other accused partly allowed, conviction for murder set aside, but conviction for causing disappearance of evidence confirmed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Admissibility and voluntariness of confessional statements — Non-compliance with Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and lack of voluntariness. (Para 8 )
3. Confessions were recorded irregularly without required memoranda, following prolonged police custody, and by a magistrate who assisted the investigation, rendering them involuntary. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Confessions recorded by a magistrate who assisted the investigation and provided insufficient time after police custody are involuntary and inadmissible. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )
5. Convictions for murder set aside; conviction for causing evidence to disappear confirmed for one appellant and set aside for the other. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. What is the requirement when a magistrate does not record a confession in their own hand?
Under Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if the examination is not recorded by the magistrate himself, he must make a memorandum in the language of the court or English, sign it, and annex it to the record. (Para 13 )
7. How does the timing of a confession after police custody affect its voluntariness?
To ensure the accused's mind is free from fear or complexes developed during police custody, generally at least 24 hours should lapse before a confession is recorded, although this is not an inflexible rule. (Para 17 )
8. Does a magistrate's participation in the investigation affect the voluntariness of a confession?
Yes. A magistrate who takes an active part in attesting recovery memos may not be perceived as independent by the accused, making it desirable that another magistrate record the confessions. (Para 18 )
9. Does non-compliance with recording procedures automatically make a confession inadmissible?
Under Section 533(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a statement may still be admitted despite irregularities if evidence shows it was duly made and the error did not prejudice the accused's defence on the merits. (Para 14 )
P.B.GAJENDRA GADKAR, J.
(1) THESE two Criminal Appeals Nos. 121 and 140 of 1962, arise out of a criminal case in which the two appellants Babu Singh and Babu Lal were charged with having committed offences under s. 302 read with 8. 34 and s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case against them was that on or about December 22, 1960, the two appellants murdered Mahtab Singh in furtherance of their common intention and thereby committed an offence under s. 302 read with 8.34. The case further was that on or about the day or the third week of January 1961, they did cause the evidence of the said murder to disappear by burying the dead body of Mehtab Singh and thereby committed an offence under s. 201 of the Code.
(2) THE victim Mehtab Singh was the father of the appellant Babu Singh and Babu Lal is the friend of Babu Singh. It appears that Mehtab Singh was living alone and that the relations between him and his son Babu Singh were not cordial. In fact, Mehtab Singh had complained to the police authorities that he apprehended danger from his son. The prosecution case as it was laid before the trial court was that on December 22, 1960, the two appellants entered the house in which Mehtab Singh lived. They caught hold of Mehtab Singh while he was sleeping on a cot. Babu Singh sat on his chest and throttled him while his companion held the victim down. The dead body of the victim was then packed up in a gunny bag and concealed in a corner. Babu Singh who was familiar with the house and its contents forced open a looked trunk and removed a bag containing Ks. 1200.00. With this bag the culprits left the house Babu Singh taking care to look the house before they left the scene of the offence. With the money thus obtained, Babu Singh made several purchases. Some days later Babu Singh with the help of Babu Lal removed the dead of his father to the house of Babu Lal where it was put underground in a kotha. That, in brief, is the prosecution case against the appellants. The discovery of this offence was made in a some what unusual manner. Babu Lal was arrested in connection with another theft case, and whilst he was being interrogated in the course of the investigation of that offence he made a disclosure statement and showed his willingness to make some discoveries. He then took the police party to his house and as a result of the statement made by him the kotha containing the dead body of Mehtab Singh was dug up. On the same day, Babu Lal made another disclosure statement as a result of which a pair of shoes, watch, radio, hundred rupees in currency notes and some other articles were found. The prosecution alleges that these goods had been purchased by Babu Singh with the money he took away after murdering his father and were kept in the house of Babu Lal.
(3) BABU Singh who was arrested on January 22, 196, made a similar disclosure statement which led to the discovery of shoes, copper trunk and purchase receipt relating to the watch.
(4) AFTER these discoveries were made in pursuance of the statements made by the appellants it is alleged that they expressed a desire to make confessional statements, and so they were sent to the magistrate on February 6, 1961. The learned magistrate directed that they should be handed over to jail custody and accordingly they were taken to the jail. On February 7, 1961, both the appellants were produed before the said magistrate and their confessions were recorded. In addition to the discovery made by the investigating officer, the prosecution relied on these .two confessions in support of their charge against the appellants.
(5) IT also appears that on January 15, 1961, a telegram was sent addressed to the appellant Babu Singh described as Bhola Ram from Patiala. This telegram purported to say "Mehtab Singh seriously ill, send Babu Singh". It was the prosecution case that this telegram had been deliberately sent by Babu Lal and was addressed to
