The admissibility and reliability of confessional statements, the requirement of corroborative evidence, and the impact of retraction of confession on its admissibility and reliability.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.5.2004, recorded by the learned Session Judge, Bongaigaon in Sessions Case No. 63(A)/2000 under Section 302 IPC, against the Appellant Md. Sahidul Islam and sentencing him to under go rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.9.2000 the accused killed his wife Fulmala Begum by Strangulation at about 2 a.m. in the night and to cover up the murder set fire on the dead body after pouring Kerosene oil. A first information report, exhibit-1 was lodged by Md. Nowsad Ali, P.W. 1 in Jogighopa Police Station in the morning of the 19th June, 2000, stating inter-alia that around 4.30 a.m. on that day his sister Ashiwa Khatun, mother of the accused, when coming out to the courtyard in order to offer the 'Fazarar Namaaz' (morning prayer) saw smoke billowing out from her son's room and started raising commotion. The neighbouring people on hearing halla came to the place of occurrence and thereafter on entering in to the room they found Sahidul's wife Fulmala Begum burning inside the room. The people present there then doused the fire by pouring water on her body and they found that Fulmala Begum had already died. It has also been stated in the said first information report that Sahidul Islam, the accused made an extra judicial confession before the villagers stating that he had strangulated his wife. The police on receipt of the said information registered Jogighopa Police Station Case No. 29/2000 Under Section 302 IPC and took up the investigation. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and the charge was framed against the accused Appellant by the learned Session Judge, Bongaigaon on 18.1.2003 under Section302 IPC. When the charge was explained and read over, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During trial, the prosecution, in order to bring home the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused Appellant examined 10 witnesses including the informant, parents of the accused Appellant, the Investigating Officer, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and the learned Magistrate, who recorded the confessional statement of the accused Appellant. The confessional statement of the accused Appellant recorded by the learned Magistrate on 21.6.2000, was exhibited as exhibit-7.

3. The learned Session Judge after recording the evidences of the prosecution witnesses recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upon perusal of the evidences on record, by the impugned judgment of conviction, convicted Appellant under Section302 IPC and passed the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay the fine, as stated above, after hearing the accused on the point of sentence. Hence the present appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. P.C. Gayan, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam for the Respondent and also perused the judgment of conviction and the evidences on record.

5. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that though the prosecution case is that the accused made an extra judicial confession before the villagers including mother of the accused, the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not stated anything about making of any extra judicial confession by the accused and therefore, the conviction can not be based on extra judicial confession. It has further been submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the witness do not support the prosecution story and therefore, accused is entitled to be set at liberty by setting aside the judgment of conviction recorded against him. Mr. Choudhury, the learned Sr. Counsel, has further submitted t