SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1950 Supreme(Ori) 51

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Jagannadhadas And Panigrahi, JJ.
KHALLI BEHERA - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 25  Of  1950
Decided On : AUGUST 16, 1950

Advocates Appeared:
Dibyasinga Misra

A retracted confession can be the basis of a conviction if it is corroborated by other evidence.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - CONFESSION - RETRACTED CONFESSION - CORROBORATION - CONFESSION RECORDED AT MAGISTRATE'S HOUSE - VALIDITY - STATEMENT OF APPROVER - ADMISSIBILITY - FORFEITURE OF PARDON.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Khalli Behera, was convicted of murder under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code. He had made a confessional statement to a magistrate three days after his arrest, which he later retracted. He was also examined as an approver in the Committing Magistrate's Court, but he went back on his earlier statements in the Sessions Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the appellant's confessional statement was voluntary and was corroborated by other evidence in the case. It also held that the appellant's deposition as an approver was admissible in evidence, even though he had retracted it, because it had been made with the hope of obtaining a pardon. The court found that the appellant had forfeited the pardon and was therefore liable to be punished.

Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's confessional statement was voluntary and admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the appellant's deposition as an approver was admissible in evidence. 3. Whether the appellant had forfeited the pardon.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A retracted confession can be the basis of a conviction, but it should be corroborated by other evidence. 2. A statement made by an approver is admissible in evidence, even if it is retracted, because it is made with the hope of obtaining a pardon. 3. A pardon can be forfeited if the approver fails to abide by the terms of the bond.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence.

PANIGRAHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against a conviction Under Section 302/149, Penal code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam Nayagarh. The occurrence in respect of which, the appellant, Khalli Behera, was charged took place on the night of 11-10-1949 at about 7 P. M. on the Grand Trunk Road between berhampur and Golanthra when the deceased, a jutka driver by name Kalia behera, was attacked by a number of persons and done to death, The appellant, along with a number of other persons, was arrested on 12-10-1946, the day after the occurrence. Two days later, he was produced before a magistrate as he was willing to make a confession. On 15-10 1949 his confessional statement was recorded. On 19-11-1916 he was charge-sheeted along with the other accused. On 19-12-1949 he was tendered pardon and he executed a bond agreeing to make a true and full disclosure of all the facts he knew about the occurrence and that he was willing to be exa mined as an approver. He was actually examined as an approver on 17-2-1947 in the Court of the Committing Magistrate. The case was later committed to the Court of session and the approver was again examined as a witness (P. W. 13) in that court, in Sessions case no. 10 of 1947. The appellant was examined on 3-71947 in the Sessions Court when he went back completely upon his earlier statements. The Public Prosecutor of Ganjam thereupon certified, under schedule 39, Criminal P. C. that the appellant had forfeited the pardon and that he was liable to be put on his trial. The case which has given rise to this appeal is a sequel to the failure of the appellant to abide by the terms of the bond which he had executed. The appellant pleaded that he had not forfeited the pardon and that he was not guilty of the charge of murder.

( 2 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case held that the confession of the appellant made three days after his arrest was true and was supported by the other evidence in the case. He therefore accepted the appellant's confessional statement as evidence against him in spite of the fact that it was retracted later. He also relied upon the deposition of the appellant before the Committing Magistrate on 17-2 1947 as the facts mentioned therein had been corroborated by the other oral evidence. He held that the reasons given by the appellant for retracting the confession and the deposition were a tissue of falsehood and accordingly found the appellant guilty of the charge of murder and sentenced him to transportation for life.

( 3 ) MR. Dibyasinga Misra who appeared amicus curiae for the appellant has urged in an able and painstaking argument that the confessional statement should be ruled out as inadmissible as it was not voluntary, that the deposition made by the appellant as approver amounts to a departure from the facts stated in his confessional statement inasmuch as it makes mention of a large number of details omitted in the confession and that the deposition itself, having been induced by the hope of a pardon, should not have been admitted in evidence.

( 4 ) THAT a confession, though retracted, can be the basis of a conviction, cannot be disputed as a matter of law. The Courts, however, look for corroboration of the statements made in the retracted confession, before acting upon it, as a rule of prudence. It is not necessary to refer to all the cases that were cited at the Bar as the point has been well recognis9d by all the High Courts. As the learned Sessions Judge has summarised the evidence relating to the factum of the occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, I shall only briefly give an outline of the broad facts deposed to by the witnesses.

( 5 ) IT is established that the deceased Kalia Behera was decoyed by Dhanu, who was one of the parsons charged along with the appellant, from Berhampur and that the deceased was also accompanied by one Nartu Jagayya when he started on his ill-fated journey. That a number of people had been waiti







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top