PARMANANDA PEGU versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 02-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.• 
PARMANANDA PEGU 
v. 
ST A TE OF ASSAM 
SEPTEMBER 2, 2004 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDDI AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 164-Confession, recording 
of-Procedural requirements laid down in sub sections (2) to (4) are 
mandatory and aimed to ensure that the confession is made voluntarily. 
Section 164-Retracted confession and corroboration-An accused can 
be convicted on the basis of his confession even though the retracted it later 
on-Ratio of the decision in Kashmira Singh case that confession cannot be 
made the foundation of conviction was rendered in the context of considering 
the utility of that confession as against a co-accused-This ratio was wrongly 
applied to the case of retracted confession in Chimanlal case-However, 
usually courts require some corroboration to the confessional statement-On 
facts, held, there was not a single circumstance proved which substantially 
supported the truth of the version contained in confessional statement. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section 26-Confession-Value of extra judicial 
E 
confession-Prosecution sought to rely on extra judicial confession made by 
the accused before the Executive Magistrate and others in the course of 
recreating the crime scenario at the instance of police-No notes or _record 
of proceedings kept by the Executive Magistrate filed in the court-Other 
witnesses did not hear the accused clearly while they were narrating the 
incidence to the Executive Magistrate-Held, cannot be relied upon. 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 365 & 302-Appellant and other accused 
charged for abducting and killing two minor boys-Convicted and sentenced 
F 
to death after trial by both the courts below-Conviction based on extra 
judicial confession and judicial confession which was not corroborated even 
G 
in the minimal materials-Judicial confession later retracted-Held, High 
Court erred in relying upon them. 
According to the prosecution, appellant and another accused 
confessed to have abducted and killed two minor boys. They were 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
convicted and sentenced to death after trial by both the courts below. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Conviction was based on incriminating circumstances that the accused 
and the deceased were last seen together, recovery of dead body and 
silver chain of deceased at the instance of accused, extrajudicial confession 
made by the accused, confessional statement made by the accused and 
opinion of Medical Officers. The present appeal is preferred by one of 
the accused, as the other accused is absconding. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.'The High Court fell into a serious error in not considering 
the case of the appellant separately and applying the evidence relating 
to the other accused, to the appellant. The deceased were last seen in the 
company of other accused only. Silver chain and the dead body of the 
deceasetl were recovered at the instance of other accused and not the 
/ 
. 
appellant. (16-F; 7-HJ 
2. Accused were alleged to have made extrajudicial confession in 
the course of recreating the crime scenario at the instance of police. The 
court opined that it cannot it be acted upon as prosecution failed to file 
any notes or records of proceedings kept by the Executive Magistrate 
(since deceased). None of the other witnesses present at that time heard 
the accused clearly while they, were allegedly narrating the incident to 
the Executive Magistrate. [8-H; 9-G; 10-E] 
3. Before acting on a confession made before a judicial magistrate 
in terms of Section 164, Court must be satisfied that the procedural 
requirements laid down in Sub-sections (2) to (4) are complied with. 
F 
These are salutary safeguards to ensure that the confession is made 
G 
voluntarily by the accused after being apprised of the implications of 
•: 
making such confessions. As to the retracted confession cf the appellant, 
it has been found that the mandatory Procedural requirements have 
been fulfilled. But that is not the end of the matter. The Court should 
still see whether there are any circumstance appearing from the record, 
which may cast a doubt on the voluntary nature of the confession. The 
endeavour of the Court should be to apply its mind to the question 
whether the accused was free from threat, duress or inducement at the 
time of making the confession. The Court should then test the truth of 
the confession for which it should look to corroboration from other 
H 
evidence tho

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.