TULSI SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 07-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TULSI SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
AUGUST 7, 1996 
B 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, .LI.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: 
S.30~Murde,-Tria/ by Special Cowt-Trial Cowt rxordi11g co11vic-
C lion on the basis of co11fessio11 of accused and medical evide11ce-Held, 
confession not having been recorded in consonance lVith tile requirenzents of 
s.164(2) Cr. P. C,Special Cowt was 11ot justified i11 ente1tai11i11g the confession 
as a vo/unta1y 01u .. ~onviction and sentence recorded against accused set 
aside. 
D 
Code of C!iminal Procedure, 1973 : 
E 
S.164(2) and (4}-Confessio1t-Convictio11 by trial Cowt based on-No 
indication in the confession recorded by Judicial Magistrate that it was 
recorded by him after being satisfied that the accused was making a voluntary 
statement and he gave the accused tire requisite caution-Held these are basic 
pre-requisites for recording a confession and a nzere endorse111ent in accord-
ance with sub-section (4) after recording it would not fulfil requirements of 
sub-section (2)-Since none of tire two requirements of s.164(2) has been 
complied with, tJial cowt was not at all justified in entc1taini11g tire confession 
as a voluntary one and recording conviction in absence of any other ill-
F 
crinzinating evidence against the accused. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
589 of 1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.85 of the Special Court at 
G Ferozepur in Case No. 64/84 T.No. 18/85 and F.l.R. No. 151 of 1984. 
O.P. Khullar and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant. 
H.M. Singh for R.S. Suri for the Respondent. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
340 
• 
TULSISINGHv. STATE 
341 
Tulsi Singh, the appellant before us, was arraigned before the Special A 
Court, Ferozepur for the murder of his wife Chhinder Kaur. The trial 
ended in an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appel-
lant under Section 302 !PC and aggrieved thereby he has filed the instant 
appeal. 
In absence of any eye witness to the murder, the prosecution rested 
its case upon the confession made by the appellant before a Judicial 
Magistrate and the evidence of the doctor who held post mortem examina-
tion upon the deceased and opined that her death was homicidal. 
From the impugned judgment we find that the appellant did not 
dispute the fact that his wife met with an homicidal death. He, however, 
contained that he was not responsible for the murder, nor did he make any 
voluntary confession in respect thereof as alleged by the prosecution. The 
Special Court, however, found the confession made by the appellant to be 
voluntary and true and relying solely thereupon convicted the appeliapt. 
The only point that has been urged on behalf of the appellant in 
support of this appeal is that the Special Court was not justified in 
entertaining the confession as evidence - much less relying upon the same 
- as it was not recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 164 
Cr.P.C. In elaborating this contention is has been submitted that before 
recording the confession Shri 0.P. Garg (PW 1), the learned Magistrate, 
did not explain to the appellant that he was not hound to make confession 
and that if he did so it might be used against him nor did he put any 
question to him to satisfy himself that the confession was being voluntarily 
made, as required under sub-section (2) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. 
To ascertain whether the above contention is borne by the record or 
not we have carefully looked into the evidence of the Magistrate as also 
the confession (Ext. P/6). On perusal thereof, we find that after his arrest 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on June 16, 1984 and 
sent to police custody for a week on the prayer of the Investigating Officer. G 
He was thereafter produced before the Magistrate on June 22, 1984 when 
he volunteered to make a confession. The Magistrate remanded him to 
judicial custody with a direction that he be produced on the following date, 
that is, on June 23, 1984. It appears that immediately after he was produced 
on that day the learned Magistrate recorded his confession. Though the 
learned Magistrate testified that before recording the confession he satis- H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
fied himself that the accused (appellant) was making a voluntary statement 
and that after giving due caution he recorded it, the confession does not 
anywhere indicate as to whether before recordin

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