Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

33. At this stage we may usefully refer to the principles governing the evidentiary value of retracted confession. The confession is a form of admission consisting of direct acknowledgment of guilt in a criminal charge. It must be in express words by the accused in a criminal case of the truth of the guilt fact charged or some essential part of it and a statement that contains a self-exculpatory matter can not amount to a confession. The confession should be a voluntary one, that means not caused by inducement, threat or promise. Whether a confession is Voluntary or not is essentially a question of fact. The judicial confessions are those which are made before a magistrate or in Court in due course of legal proceedings and when such a confession is retracted, the courts have held that apart from the statement being voluntary it should be true and should receive sufficient corroboration in material particulars by independent evidence. The rule of prudence namely requiring corroboration does not mean that each and every circumstances mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused in the crime must be separately and independently corroborated. It is sufficient if there is general corroboration of the important incidents, just like in the case of an approver's evidence and it is not necessary that the corroborate evidence itself should be sufficient for conviction. It may not be necessary to refer to remaining aspects governing the use of retracted confession for the purposes of this case. Suffice it to say that it is also laid down that it is not illegal to base a conviction on an uncorroborated confession of an accused person but as a rule of prudence which has sanctified itself to the rule of law, the Courts do look for corroboration before acting upon and accepting the retracted confession and what amount of corroboration would be necessary in a case would be a question of fact to be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case. (See Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab , Swaran Singh Rattan Singh's case (supra) Ediga Anamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh and Ors. ).

37. Then there is evidence of P.W.32 who had also last seen D-l in the company of the accused. learned Counsel submitted that P.W.32 stated that it was 8 P.M. whereas P.W.48 stated that he saw them at 10 P.M. Therefore their evidence should not be accepted. We do not think there is much variation. At any rate if there is some difference as to the actual time in their versions, that is not a ground to reject their evidence. The next important circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the recovery of the body of D-l, the jewels and other articles belonging to her in pursuance of the confession made by A-1. P.W.132 arrested A-l and A-4 at 11 P.M. and A-l gave the statement, admissible portion of which is Ex. P. 187. After giving requisition by the Inspector and in the presence of P.W. 108, the body of Lalita was exhumed and M.Os. 86 to 88 were recovered from the pit. The Doctor, P.W. 122, who conducted the post-mortem, found the body to be of a woman. The police also recovered M.O. 100 series of bangles pieces, M.O. 101 series of blouse pieces and M.O. 134 series of hairs pieces. P.W.48 has also deposed about the digging of the place where ultimately the body of D-l was said to have been buried and recovered learned Counsel, however, submitted that there is no positive proof that the remnants of the body and recovered articles were that of Lalita, D-l and the prosecution has not proved corpus delicti. But that by itself is not a ground to doubt the murder of D-l and burial of her body in the manner confessed by the accused. However, the prosecution also relied on the evidence of P.W.118, Assistant Director of Forensic Science Department who was asked to give his opinion about sex, age and stature of the deceased and about the identity with reference to the photograph and it is his evidence that they examined the skull and the photograph by video super-imposition technique and in all probabilities the same are the skull and mandible of the individual marked as Item (L) namely the photo M.O. 19 which is that of Lalita. The said report was signed by P.W. 120, the Director. He has also deposed in his evidence about the super-imposition device. Added to this P.W. 122 also gave opinion that body was that of a lady and she has also given the cause of death namely that it was homicidal. Therefore there is ample corroboration to the retracted confession of A-l and A-2 in respect of murder of D-l. One more circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the jewels belonging to D-l in pursuance of the confession made by A-l. P.W.98 is the panch witness in whose presence P.W.132, Investigating Officer examined A-l and the admissible portions are marked as Ex. P. 66 and Ex. P.67. A-l took P.W.134, Inspector, C.I.D. to a house in Tirumalai Nagar, Perungudi and there he directed his wife Jagadeeswari to hand over the articles entrusted to her and M.Os. 22,23 and 73 to 76 were seized. Likewise M.Os. 35 to 37 and 77 to 83 were recovered after search of the house of Jagadeeswari. A-l led them to P.W. 25's house and he "asked her to produce the articles entrusted to her. Accordingly P.W. 25 produced M.Os. 10, 13, 20 and 83. The attesting witnesses were also examined. They also recovered M.O. 99 and 133 at the instance of Mohan. M.O. 99, a gold chain is said to be belonging to D-l. Then there is evidence of P.W.35, mother of D-l and she has identified all the articles. P.W. 42, brother of D-2 deposed that he has seen D-l wearing M.Os. 73 to 76 and 99. In his retracted confession, A-l has also mentioned about the recoveries. This is yet another strong circumstance which amply corroborates the retracted confessions. The prosecution by these retracted judicial confessions duly corroborated has proved the participation of A-l and A-2 in the murder of D-l.

38. So far as the murders of D-2 and D-3 are concerned, the prosecution case is that A-l to A-3 and absconding accused Mohan and P.W.I, the approver participated. We have given the details of the prosecution case in this regard and we have also referred to the deposition of P.W.I, the approver. The versions in the retracted confessions of A-l and A-2 are the same as the one given by P.W.I. There is absolutely no difference. The same witnesses, whose evidence was relied upon for the purpose of corroboration of the evidence of P.W.I, would be again the relevant witnesses for the purpose of corroborating the retracted confessions given by A-l and A-2. The evidence of P.Ws. 21, 51, 71 and 121 as well as that of P.Ws. 31, 32 and P.W.25 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 50,51 and P.W.4 corroborate the retracted confession about A-l running the brothel business and the motive aspect. So far as the actual occurrence is concerned, the details given in the confessional statements are one and the same as given by P.W.I and we need not refer to them again. Now coming to the burning of the body and throwing away the remnants of the burnt body of D-2, the evidence of P.Ws. 67, 68 and 69 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 32 lends sufficient corroboration. On examination of the evidence of these witnesses we are also satisfied that the version given by A-l and A-2 is a true one. The recoveries of M.O. 13 at the instance of A-l and M.O. 2 from the mother-in-law of A-2 lend further corroboration. Then there is the evidence of P.Ws. 25, 32 and 55 who speak to the circumstances that D-2 was last seen alive in the company of A-l to A-3, Mohan and P.W.I and this evidence also has been accepted by both the courts below. Likewise regarding the murder of D-3, there is evidence of P.Ws. 25, 31, 32, 33, 45, 56, 59, 60 to 63 and 68 which lends ample corroboration to the retracted confessions. That apart there are recoveries also. P.W.59, the mother of D-3, has identified the clothes worn by Ravi, D-3 and P.W.60, the wife of D-3, also supported the evidence of P.W.59. There is discovery of the body at the instance of A-l. Even assuming that the same is not admissible under Section 27, yet as a circumstance the same can be relied upon, which is very important. Then we have the evidence of P.W.25 about the diary M.O. 20 and its contents which also lends assurance to the retracted confessions.

52. The learned Counsel also submitted that in awarding the death sentence case of each of the accused has to be considered by the Court and examine whether there are special reasons for awarding the death sentence and for that purpose the Court has to examine the part played by each one of them and the quality of the incriminating evidence in that respect. The learned Counsel strongly contended that as to the actual participation of the individual accused in the murder of D-l, there is no other evidence except the retracted confessions of A-l and A-2 and that regarding the murders of D-2 and D-3 and the individual participation, again there is only tainted evidence of P.W.I and the retracted confessions of A-l and A-2 and that on the basis of such evidence they cannot be sentenced to death. We have already held that P.W.I's evidence which is corroborated by other independent evidence on all important aspects establishes that A-l to A-3 participated in the murders of D-2 and D-3 and that all, namely A-l to A-6, participated in the murders of D-4 to D-6. So far as the murder of D-l is concerned there is retracted confession of A-l which has been found to be true and voluntary and the same has been corroborated on material aspects. Likewise, there is retracted confession of A-2 also which has been corroborated on material particulars. Both these items of evidence fully establish the common intention to commit those murders. Now coming to the individual part played it may assume some importance in some cases, but in an organised crime that kind of enquiry may not be relevant for the purpose of finding out the special reasons. However, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the part played by the individual accused i.e. A-l to A-3 may be relevant in weighing mitigating and aggravating circumstances in awarding death sentence, particularly in view of the fact that A-4 to A-6 who were also the associates of A-l and who also participated in committing the murders of D-4 to D-6 are awarded only imprisonment for life and also in view of the fact that the case mainly rests on the evidence of approver.