IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the significance of complying with the safeguards for recording a confessional statement and clarifies the conditions for invoking the first exception in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is based on his confessional statement and the supporting evidence pertaining to the surrounding circumstances. By the judgment of conviction of July 28, 2017 and the resultant sentence which was passed on July 31, 2017, the appellant has been found guilty of murdering an 18-year-old girl and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The further charge under Section 376 of the Penal Code was not established at the trial.

2. The principal ground urged on behalf of the appellant is that there was grave and sudden provocation by the deceased which made the appellant extremely angry and lose self-control and beat the women without intending to cause her death or even being aware that the nature of beating that he inflicted on the woman could have caused or was likely to cause her death. The appellant submits that though he fled from the place of occurrence after being shocked at what had happened, he later voluntarily surrendered at the Mawsynram Police Station. The appellant points out that no murder weapon was discovered and the investigating officer, who deposed as a prosecution witness, clearly asserted that the charge-sheet had been filed against the appellant based primarily on the confession that he had made before a First Class Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Another ground which is canvassed is that, as in many other cases in the State, the confessional statement of the appellant was recorded after administering oath to him. The appellant submits that since no oath could have been administered in view of Section 164 of the Code, the confessional statement was robbed of its evidentiary value as a result of the colossal mistake committed by the relevant Magistrate.

4. At any rate, the appellant suggest that there was nothing in his conduct to suggest that he had acted in a cruel manner and the appellant's reaction after the incident was as would be in every other case of a normal person being first shocked at what had happened and, thereafter, being afraid of the consequences.

5. It is necessary to deal with the aberration on the part of the Magistrate in administrating oath before recording the confessional statement rendered by the appellant on June 29, 2005, about a fortnight after the incident which took place in the morning of June 6, 2005. Section 164(5) of the Code, no doubt, exempts a confessional statement being recorded in such manner as would be appropriate when recording oral evidence. The relevant provision upholds the rule against self-incrimination as embodied in Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

6. While other statements under Section 164(1) of the Code made in course of an investigation under Chapter XII of the Code require to be recorded in a particular manner and the relevant Magistrate is also empowered to administer oath to the person whose statement is recorded, when it comes to a confession, no oath ought to be administered though the recording ought to be in accordance with Section 281 of the Code and the confessional statement should be signed by the person making the confession. In addition, the Magistrate is duty-bound to indicate to the person seeking to make or making the confession that such person is not bound to make any confession, but if he does, it may be used as an evidence against him. Further, the Magistrate has to ascertain that the confession was voluntarily made and such Magistrate has to record his satisfaction in this regard. The confessional statement has to be taken by the Magistrate in his presence and hearing and the same has to be read over to the maker of the statement and the consent of the maker has to be obtained upon reading out the statement to him.

7. These safeguards, including the certificate that the Magistrate has to issue, are to ensure that the confession is not coerced out of the accused or that the accused is not subjected to s