Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.42 seconds)

Abdul Rajak Murtaja Dafedar vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 May, 1969

12. Further, in Abdul Razak Murtaza Dafadar v. State of Maharashtra, , it has been held in para 9 that if the confession is not extracted out of coercion or inducement then such confession can be made as foundation for the conviction. In this case no such coercion or inducement were proved to be employed. The confession was made voluntarily and out of free Will.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 38 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Subramania Goundan vs The State Of Madras on 17 September, 1957

"A confession of a crime by a person, who has perpetrated it, is usually the outcome of penitence and remorse and in normal circumstances is the best evidence against the maker. The question has very often arisen whether a retracted confession may form the basis of conviction if believed to be true and voluntarily made. For the purpose of arriving at this conclusion the Court has to take into consideration not only the reasons given for making the confession or retracting it but the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the same. It may be remarked that there can be no absolute rule that a retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless the same is corroborated materially. It was laid down in certain cases one such being (in re Kesava Pillai), I.L.R. 53 Mad. 160 : A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 837 that if the reasons given by an accused person for retracting a confession are on the face of them false, the confession may be acted upon as it stands and without any corroboration. But the view taken by this Court on more occasions than one is that as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into a rule of law, a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 71 - P G Menon - Full Document
1   2 Next