SHAN KARIA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 26-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
E 
,F 
IH 
736 
SHAN KARIA 
11. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
April 26, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA, N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.j 
Proof of guilt-Tests to be applied by the Courts in a capital case when 
relying solely on confessional statement of the accused-Identification of Pri-
soners Act, Sections 4 and 5-0htaining of thumb impression in the presence 
of Magistrate, whether necessary-Track evidence is a relevant circumstance 
which can be taken into account along with other evidence. 
The appellant was tried, convicted and sentenced to death 
under 
Section 
302, Penal Code for the double murder of Kartar Singh 
and 
Mada 
Si'Ilgh 
deceased, by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. 
He wa6 further convicted for 
offenres under Sections 307, 459, 460 and 380 Pena] Code. The case of the 
prosecution rested mainly on the confessional statement, Ex. p. 27, part from 
supporting circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge found that the 
confessional statement though retracted at the time of examination 
under 
Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, had been voluntarily made 
by 
the 
accused and that it was true and had been corroborated in some particulars by 
the other evidence on record. 
Shankaria's appeal to the· High Court was dismissed, the reference made by 
the Sessions Judge was accepted and the conviction and sentence of death were 
confirmed. 
in appeal by special leave, it was contended that (i) the confession was not 
voluntarily made but was the result of police pressure, inducement and coercion 
and that this inference was deducible among others, from several features of 
the case. 
(ii) after the preliminary questioning, the Magistrate hardly give 20 
minutes to the appellant for reflection before recording his confession, 
which 
according to the. ruling of this Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [1957] 
SCR 953 the l\1agistrate should have sent the accused back for at least 24 hours 
to jail to think and decide, as to whether or not he should make a confession 
and (iii) there is reason to suspect that after recording the confession, the appel-
lant was handed back to the .Police Superintendent who then took him to 
Hanumangarh. 
If that be a fact, it would amount to a contravention of ·sub-
section (3) of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, giving 
rise to an inference that the confession was not voluntary. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. A confession recorded u/ s 164 Criminal Procedure 
Code, 
if 
voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt. [744 B-CJ 
2. When in a capital case the prosecution demands, a conviction of the 
accused, primarily on the basis of his confession recorded under s. 164 Criminal 
Procedure Code, the Court must apply a double test; 
(1) Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary? 
(2) If so, whether it is true and trustworthy? Satisfaction of the first test 
is· a sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence. 
if the confession appears to 
the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, such as 
is mentioned in Section 24, Evidence Act, it must be excluded and 
rejected 
brevi ,nanu. 
In such a case, the question of proceeding further to apply the 
• 
~· 
• 
• 
• 
.......... 
• 
-
SHANKARIA v. RAJASTHAN 
737 
second test, does not arise. If the first test is satisfied, the Court m~st _before 
A 
acting upon the confession, reach the finding that what is. stated therein is true 
and reliable. For judging the reliability of such a confession, or fo! that matte.r 
of any substantive piece of evidence, the:e is no rigid cano~ of universal appli-
cation. Even so one broad method which may be useful 1n most cases for 
evaluating a confession, may be 
indicated. The 
Court 
s~ould 
c~refully 
examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, tn the 
light of the surrounding circu!lli'tances and pr?babilities of the 
case. If on 
such examination and companson, the confession appears to be a 
probable 
B 
catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest £?f the evidence and the 
-surrounding circumstances it may be taken to have satisfied the second test . 
' 
[ 744 C-F] 
3. 
(a) In the instant case, both these tests were satisfied. The confession 
(Ex. P-27) was found to be voluntary and true. Its perusal showed that there 
was nothing improbable or unbelievable in it. 
It appeared to be a spontaneous 
account, studded with such vivid details about the manner of co

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