Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) The confessant was under police custody for more than 24 hours.

(b) The Magistrate recording the confession did not allow 24 hours time to the contestant for cool reflection.

(c) The confession was not recorded in the Oriya language in which it was made, but in English.

Relying upon some minor contradictions in the Judicial and extra-judicial confessions of respondent No. 1 the learned Sessions Judge also held that the confession was not true.

9. It appears that both the accused were taken to custody by a Con- stable on the night of 27-4-1971. Ext. 27, the order-sheet f the Magistrate shows that they did not complain of any ill-treatment by the police. Immediately after their production, the Magistrate cautioned the accused persons that they were not bound to confess and that any confession made by them would be used as evidence against them. Then he gave them time till 3-5-1971 for cool reflection. When they were produced before the Magistrate on 3-5-1971, accused No. 1 Suruji offered to confess while accused No. 2 Sripati declined to do so. Then the Magistrate withdrew respondent No. I from the police custody and kept her in charge of the Court peon. He disclosed his identity to respondent No 1 and explained to her that she was not bound to make any confession and that any confession made by her would be used as evidence against her and sihe would be punished according to law.

The learned Sessions Judge relying on a decision of the Supreme Court , (Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab) observed that at least 24 hours time should have been allowed for cool reflection. The evidence on record shows that respondent No. 1 had been allowed two days time for reflection after she was first produced before the Magistrate on 30-4-1971 and that when she was again produced on 3-5-1971, the Magistrate also allowed half an hour time for cool reflection in the Court room before actual recording of the confession. this Court had occasion to say before and would repeat here once again that in their Lordships did not lay down an absolute rule that unless 24 hours time was given the confession should be held to be not voluntary. In (1974) 40 Cut LT 313 :1975 Cri LJ 564, (Naidu Budhia v. State of Orissa) this Court observed: