9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Voluntariness of the confession. 2. Truthfulness of the confession. 3. Corroboration of the retracted confession. 4. Sufficiency of evidence from prosecution witnesses. Detailed Analysis: 1. Voluntariness of the Confession: The appellant argued that the confession was not voluntary, alleging police pressure and inducement. The court examined the procedure followed by the Magistrate, who ensured the appellant was given time for reflection and was free from police influence. The Magistrate's adherence to the Criminal Rules of Practice and the Criminal Procedure Code was noted. The court found no evidence of police inducement or threats, concluding that the confession was voluntary. 2. Truthfulness of the Confession: The appellant contended that the confession was untrue, pointing to discrepancies between the confession and other evidence, such as the number of injuries on the deceased and the presence of other individuals during the attack. The court acknowledged these discrepancies but held that the absence of elaborate details in the confession did not render it false. The confession's general consistency with the prosecution's case was sufficient to deem it truthful. 3. Corroboration of the Retracted Confession: The court emphasized the need for corroboration of a retracted confession as a matter of prudence and caution. It was noted that corroboration does not require every detail to be independently verified but rather that the general trend of the confession aligns with other evidence. The presence of human blood on material objects seized from the appellant provided sufficient corroboration. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the term "stained with human blood" in the Chemical Examiner's report implied minimal blood presence, affirming that the confession was corroborated and could be acted upon. 4. Sufficiency of Evidence from Prosecution Witnesses: While the trial court accepted the testimony of key prosecution witnesses, the High Court expressed doubts about their reliability, finding it unsafe to convict the appellant based solely on their testimonies. The High Court upheld the conviction primarily on the basis of the voluntary and true confession, corroborated by material evidence. The Supreme Court concurred with this approach, noting that even if the witnesses' testimonies were insufficient for a conviction, the confession, corroborated by the presence of human blood on the appellant's belongings, proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence based on the voluntary and true confession corroborated by material evidence. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the involuntariness and untruthfulness of the confession or the insufficiency of corroboration.
|
