Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. With the backdrop of the principles, as stated above, let us delve deep into the materials available on record in the case to find out as to whether the confession given by the accused can be acted upon as being voluntary, true and reliable.

15. P.W. 30, Inspector of Police sent the requisition, Exhibit P. 19 to P.W. 28, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Orathanadu on 11-2-1985 to record the confessional statement of the accused. The accused was then found to be in a mood to confess the crime. P.W. 28, in turn, on receipt of the said requisition on 12-2-1985, sent an intimation to the Superintendent, Sub Jail, Thanjavur requiring his production before him at 3-00 p.m. on 13-2-1985. The accused had been accordingly produced before him at 3-10 p.m. It is not as if the accused had been produced by any police personnel connected with the investigation in this case. Admittedly, as seen from the evidence of P.W. 28, the accused had been produced by the Head warder Manickam and another Warder by name Ramu. The Magistrate, P.W. 28 also created a conducive atmosphere, by removing all persons from Court hall. Excepting himself, his bench clerk and office assistant, besides the accused, none was available inside the Court hall and the doors and windows of the Court hall had also been closed. He disclosed his identity to the accused that he was a Magistrate and the accused was before court. He administered the necessary warnings and cautions and also put questions to find out whether he was under any police influence, threat or coercion. To the questions put to the accused as to any inducement, threat or coersion emerging from the police, the accused would give a categorical answer that no such inducement, threat or coercion emerged from any quarter whatever, much less police to make a confession before the Court. The accused was also made to understand that there was no need for him to make a confession and it he did make a confession, the same would be used against him and there was every reason of his being convicted and sentenced on the confession so made. The accused was also enquired as to whether he decided to make a confession, after knowing the pros and cons of the situation. After the administration of all these warnings and cautions and the other questions put, the accused expressed his willingness to make a confession, as respects the occurrence. The Magistrate, P.W. 28 did not, in a hurly-burly fashion, started recording the confession. What he did was that he gave him time for reflection for about 24 hours and he was asked to be produced the next day at 3-45 p.m., i.e., on 14-2-1985.