LexSHIVAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- SHIVAPPA A v. STA TE OF KARNATAKA NOVEMBER29, 1994 [DR. A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] B Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 164-Confession- Evidentiary value-Voluntary statement-Recording of confessional statement-Duty of Magistrate-Inquiry by Magistrate to ascertain voluntary nature of confession-Rule of strict compliance with imperative requirements of Section 164-Non-compliance renders confession C unworthy of credence. Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Conviction based on confession made u/s 164 Cr.P.C.-Cryptic manner of holding enquiry to ascertain voluntary nature of confession-Confessional statement required to be ruled out of consideration to determine guilt-Conviction not D sustainable. The appellant along with five others were tried for various offences in connection with the murder of the husband of Al. The appellant was convicted u/s 302 Indian Penal Code. The confessional statement of the appellant, recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was the only piece of evidence on which the trial court relied upon and convicted the appellant. The High E Court upheld the conviction holding that the confessional statement, even though retracted at a later stage, was voluntary and true and held that the trial court had rightly relied upon the same. The submission made on behalf of the appellant that the confessional statement recorded by the· Magistrate was neither voluntary nor true and F trustworthy was repelled. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the order of the High Court upholding his conviction and sentence for the offence u/s 302 IPC. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. A confession, if voluntary and truthfully made is an "efficacious proof of guilt". Unless the Court is satisfied that the confession is voluntary in nature, it cannot be acted upon and no further enquiry as to whether it is true and trustworthy need be made. G [176 C, E} H 171 172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R A 1.2. From the plain language of Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the Rules and guidelines framed by the High Court regarding the recording of confessional statements of an accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C., is manifest that the said provisions emphasise an enquiry by the Magistrate to ascertain the voluntary nature of the confession. This enquiry appears to be the most significant and an important part of the B duty of the Magistrate recording the confessional statement of an accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The failure of the Magistrate to put such questions from which he could ascertain the voluntary nature of the confession detracts so materially from the evidentiary value of the confession of an accused that it would not be safe to act upon the same. Full and adequate compliance not merely in form but in essence with C the provisions of S.164 Cr.P.C. and the Rules framed by the High Court is imperative and its non-compliance goes to the root of the magistrates jurisdiction to record the confession and renders the confession unworthy of credence. Before proceeding to record the confessional statement, a se11rching enquiry must be made from the ~ccused as to the custody from which he was produced and the D treatment he had been receiving in such custody in order to ensure that there is no scope for doubt of any sort of extraneous influence proceeding from a source interested in the prosecution still lurking in the mind of an accused. In case the magistrate discovers on such enquiry that there is gr:ound for such supposition he should give the accused sufficient time for reflection before he is asked to make his E statement and should assure himself tbat during the time of reflection, he is completely out of police influence. An accused should particularly be asked the reason why he wants to make a statement which would surely go against his self interest in course of the trial, even if he contrives subsequently to ret.ract the confession. Besides administering the caution of warning specifically provided for in the first part of sub- F section (2) of Section 164 namely, that the accused is not bound to make a statement and that if he makes one it may be used against him as evidence in relation to his complicity in the offence at the trial that is to follow, he should also, in plain language be assured of protection from any sort of apprehended torture or pressure from such extraneous agents as the police or the like in c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.