STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus KUTTY @ LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 10-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
A 
v. 
KUTTY @ LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN 
AUGUST JO, 2001 
[K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial/Evidence Act, 1872 : 
Retracted Confession-Evidentiary value of-Held: Non-retracted 
confession is a rarity in criminal cases-It is injudicious to reject a judicial C 
confession merely because its maker has retracted from it-The evidence 
concerning the confession has to be evaluated by looking at all aspects. 
Confession-Twin tests of-Held: Whether it is voluntary and true-
Once these tests are satisfied the next step is to see if there is any other reason 
which stands in the way of acting on it. 
D 
Confession-Articles belonging to victims recovered prior to making of 
confession-Admissibility of-Held: Judicial confession does not become bad 
by reason of such recovery-Such recovery is a factor in favour of the 
voluntariness of the confession. 
Confession-Truthfulness of-Held: Court can look/or other material 
to lend assurance about the truth of confession. 
E 
Circumstantial Evidence-Finger impression-Incriminating nature of-
Watchman's finger impressionfound on the kitchen door-Held: In the absence 
of any explanation it is an incriminating circumstance against the watchman. F 
The appellant-accused was convicted by the trial court for an offence 
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentence 
to death. But the High Court acquitted the appellant on the grounds that the 
appellant retracted the confession made by him and that the articles belonging G 
to the victims were recovered prior to the making of the confession. Hence 
this appeal. 
According to the prosecution, the appellant was employed as a watchman 
in the house of the deceased and on the fateful day the appellant along with 
433 
H 
434 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A two others killed the deceased. The finger impression of the appellant was 
found on the door of the kitchen of the house. 
Allowirg the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. It is not the law that once a confession was retracted the 
B court should presume that the confession is tainted. As a matter of practical 
knowledge one can say that non-retracted confession is a rarity in criminal 
cases. To retract from confession is the right of the confessor and all the 
accused against whom confessions were produced by the prosecution have 
invariably adopted that right. It would be injudicious to jettison a judicial 
C confession on the mere premise that its maker has retracted from it. The 
court has a duty to evaluate the evidence concerning the confession by 
looking at all aspects. The twin test of a confession is to ascertain whether 
it was voluntary and true. Once those tests are found to be positive the next 
endeavour is to sec whether there is any other reason, which stands in the 
way of acting on it. Even for that, retraction of the confession is not the 
D ground to throw the confession overboard. (438-0-E) 
1.2. A judicial confession would not become bad by reason of the fact 
that articles belonging to the victims were recovered prior to the making of 
the confession. That aspect, instead of vitiating the confession, could be a 
factor in favour of the voluntariness of the confession. When the culprit 
E finds that the articles concealed by him are all disintered it is possible that 
he might feel that there is no use in concealing the facts any more. Then 
he may desire to make a clean breast of everything to any person or 
authorities. (438-F, G( 
F 
2.1. Even regarding the truthfulness of the version given by the accused 
in the confession it is open to the court to ascertain whether there are other 
materials to lend assurance to the court about the truth of it. ( 439-H; 440-A I 
2.2. The finger impression of the accused was found on the door of the 
kitchen of the house. If the finger impression of the cook was found on the 
G door of the kitchen one would have declined to use it as a piece of corroboration 
because of the role which a cook has to perform in the culinary wing of the 
house. But the place of a watchman of the house is normally outside the 
house, if not outside the gate of the compound itself. In the absence of any 
explanation as to how the finger impression of the accused had appeared on 
the door of the kitchen of the house one can safely treat that also as an 
H incriminating circumstance against the accused. (440-G, H; 441-A( 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU ''· KUTTY@LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN [THOMA

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