Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Mr. M. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the statement recorded under Section 164, IPC suffers from the defects of guidelines given under the provisions. The accused surrendered himself on 22.08.1988 and he was produced before the Magistrate on 23.08.1988 and on 24.08.1988, his confessional statement was recorded. There was no time given for cool reflection and hence, the confessional statement so recorded cannot stand the test of law which requires that sufficient time should be given to the accused for cool reflection. Summing up his argument, he has submitted that the confessional statement is not in accordance with the law and there is no eyewitness in the case, hence, once the confessional statement does not stand the test of law the conviction is illegal as it is based solely on circumstantial evidence.

12. Appearing for the prosecution, Ms. S. Jahan argued that the sentence does not suffer from any legal infirmity because it is borne on the records that the accused has voluntarily surrendered himself and he voluntarily offered to make the confessional statement before the Magistrate. 12 hours' time was given for cool reflection by the Magistrate after due explanation that the statement may be used against him and he is not bound to make the confessional statement. There is a confirmation of the O.C. who appears as PW-14 that the Page No.# 7/11 accused appeared before him on 22.08.1988 and surrendered alongwith witnesses stating that he had killed the victim, Kade Terang and also surrendered his SBBL gun alongwith one M3 cartridge and 3 reloaded cartridges. All these facts prove that the accused is guilty of the offence and there is the clear proof that the confessional statement so recorded was free from any influences. The statements of PW-1 & PW-2 also suggests that the accused and the deceased entertained animosity between them because of the fact that the proposal to marry PW-2 was refused by the deceased and PW-2. For all these reasons, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had the intention of killing the deceased.

13. We have heard the submissions forwarded by the learned P.P. and the learned Amicus Curiae.

14. The substantial thing to be considered in a confessional statement is the purity of the statement and its voluntariness. We are to test whether it is free from any external influences. If it is ascertained that the statement has been recorded without coercion and on pure volition of the maker is found to be trustworthy, it cannot be discarded. In the case at hand, the accused on his own volition surrendered before the O.C. Bokajan, which has to be believed considering that the accused surrendered himself along with atleast three witnesses and there is no evidence of coercion on record. He further volunteered to record the confessional statement. When he was produced before the Magistrate as required under Section 164, Cr.PC he was warned of the consequences of recording confessional statement, he was further given 12 hours for cool reflection. In the above given facts there is no reason to doubt the purity of the statement so recorded. We are, therefore, of the view that the confessional statement is free from any legal infirmity.