1918 Present : Shaw J. and De Sampayo J.

THE KING v. SIDDA ct al.

D. C. Colombo (Grim.). 4,764.

(Special Case.)

    Confession of guilt by accused before Police Magistrate-Retraction of confession at the trial-Conviction based on retracted confession- Evidence.

The accused in this case were charged with house breaking and theft. At the inquiry before the Police Magistrate they made the following statement : " I am guilty, and beg for pardon. "

At the trial in the District Court the accused pleaded " not guilty. " and gave evidence denying that they had pleaded guilty.

The District Judge convicted the accused, remarking that the rest of the evidence was of such a nature that he would not have convicted on it had it stood alone.

Held, that the conviction was right.

'' Under our law confessions, whether judicial or extra-judicial, ;are evidence against the person making them, so long as they are not irrelevant under the provisions of sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Ordinance, and, like all other relevant evidence, are sufficient on which to base a conviction, even if uncorroborated by other proof. "

THIS case was referred to the Supreme Court by the learned Additional District Judge of Colombo (W. Wadsworth, Esq.), under section 353 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Garvin, S.-G., appeared for the Crown on notice from the Supreme Court.-The statement of the accused does not cease to be a confession because it was made before a Magistrate. If it is a confession it can be proved against him at the trial, even if he retracts. Confessions to the police are made in admissible under our law but there is no law which places confessions to the Magistrates on the same footing. According to Taylor the admissibility of confessions is not a question of law, but a question of prudence under the circumstances of each case. Counsel -cited Taylor, an. ss 866 to 868 (p. 608); Queen Empress v. Gangia;1 Queen Empress v. Charya:2 Queen Empress v. Raman; 5 Queen Empress v. Marku Lai.1

Cur. adv. vult.

January 28, 1918, SHAW J,-

This case raises a point of law referred by the Judge of the The King v. Additional District Court of Colombo, for the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Two accused were charged with house-breaking and theft. At the inquiry before the Police Magistrate the charge was read over and explained to the accused, and their statements were recorded under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Each accused made the following statement: " I am guilty, and beg for pardon.

At the trial in the District Court the accused pleaded '' not guilty. " and gave evidence denying that they had pleaded guilty in the Police Court.

The Magistrate who recorded their statements in the Police Court, and who is a Sinhalese gentleman who understands the language of the accused, was called in the District Court and gave evidence that the statements were taken as the law directs, and that the accused made the statements in the words recorded.

At the trial in the District Court, in addition to the confessions of the accused contained in their statements, there was only some slight circumstantial evidence of the guilt of the accused, which was of such a nature that the District Judge says he should certainly not have convicted on it had it stood alone. The Judge had some doubt how far retracted confessions of this character could be taken as proof of the charges against the accused, or whether the retracted confessions could be considered as additional evidence to the other evidence placed before the court. He has, however, given weight to the confessions as admissions of guilt, and has convicted the accused.

In my opinion the Judge acted correctly in giving weight to the confessions as evidence of the guilt of the accused.

Under our law confessions, whether judicial or e