RAY, C. J.

( 1 ) I have had. the opportunity a privilege of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Narasimham, J. I am in entire agreement with him as to the answers proposed therein and associate myself with all the reasons adduced in support thereof. I also agree with the order of conviction and sentences proposed.

( 2 ) IN view, however, of the practical importance of the question posed to standardisation and stabilisation of this branch of law in this State, I propose to add, as given below, some further reasons for my agreement with him. I have, since, seen the judgment proposed by my learned brother Das, J. He agrees with answers proposed. He, however, has added some further reasons not for the purpose of rein, forcing the correctness of the answers but for a different purpose. It seems he should approach the question with a leaning towards admissibility of a confession as a rule leaving it to the accused to be bound thereby to establish the exception by proof of circumstances that would impair its testimonial trustworthiness, This approach, if correct, (with which I do not agree) will seldom make any difference in the practical application thereof, provided the legal safeguards are not disregarded. In criminal law, the accused is entitled to keep mum casting the entire burden on the prosecution to prove his guilt, and that by legally admissible mode of proof. The further reasons that I wish to add will appear from the following paras:

( 3 ) BEFORE grappling with the problem, in its direct Gearing on the section, I should like to treat the following as the background in which the proposition has to be considered. "judicial confession" have been authoritatively defined to mean "pleas of guilt on arraignment if made freely by a person in a fit state to plead". The emphasis is on the words under lined (here in inverted commas ). These epithets. refer to the state of mind of the accused.

( 4 )

"extra-judicial confessions" have also similarly been, defined to mean "a free and voluntary confession of guilt made by a person accused of a crime, in the course of conversation with persons other than a Judge or Mag seised of the charge against him".

"the testimonial trustworthiness of the confession" in one case, or, the other, is based upon the presumption that, as a free agent, no man would make a confession against himself if the facts confessed were not true. The law, in all ages, and all times, makes a discrimination in favour of judicial confessions as against extra-judicial ones. With regard to extra-judiical confessions, blackstone, J. observed :

"even in cases of felony at common law, they are the weakest and most suspicious of all testimony, very liable to be obtained by artifice, false hopes, promises of favour, or menaces, seldom remembered accurately, or reported with precision, and incapable in their nature of being disproved by other negative evidence".

In this view of the matter, more reliance has always been placed upon a confession reduced into writing either by the prisoner or by someone else and read over to him if it be clearly shown that the confession was a spontaneous and voluntary act of the prisoner. Such a record of confession is always entitled to great weight and consideration. When a confession is proved by a witness, it rests upon his capability of understanding what was said by the prisoner, his competency to remember the very words used, and his fidelity and accuracy in relating them to Ct, and should all be received with very great caution; because, besides the danger of mistake, from the misapprehension of witnesses, the misuse of words, the failure of the party to express his own meaning, and the infirmity of memory, it should be borne in mind that the mind of the accused is oppressed by the calamity of his situation and that he is often influenced by motives of hope, or fear to make an untrue confession. It should always be borne in mind that the zeal, which generally prevails to