1962 (8) TMI 121 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Voluntariness and admissibility of confessions.
2. Compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Impact of magistrate's involvement in the investigation on the voluntariness of confessions.
4. Sufficiency of evidence to sustain charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Voluntariness and Admissibility of Confessions
The appellants contended that their confessions were not voluntary and were improperly recorded. The High Court had accepted the confessions as voluntary and true, but this aspect was not thoroughly examined. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider the admissions made by the magistrate during cross-examination, which revealed procedural lapses in recording the confessions.

2. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards under Section 364(3)
The Supreme Court found that the magistrate did not comply with Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that confessions should be recorded by the magistrate himself or that a memorandum should be made if recorded by someone else. The magistrate admitted that the confessions were recorded by his Ahlmad Reader due to his unfamiliarity with Urdu writing, and he did not make the required memorandum. This non-compliance raised significant doubts about the validity of the confessions.

3. Impact of Magistrate's Involvement in the Investigation
The magistrate who recorded the confessions had actively participated in the investigation by attesting recovery memos. The Supreme Court emphasized that while there is no legal prohibition against such involvement, it is a matter of propriety. The magistrate's involvement in the investigation could have influenced the appellants' perception of his independence, thereby affecting the voluntariness of their confessions.

4. Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Charges
The Supreme Court concluded that if the confessions were excluded, there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charge of murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 against both appellants. The High Court had relied heavily on the confessions, which were found to be improperly recorded and not voluntary. Consequently, the conviction and sentence for murder were set aside.

For the charge under Section 201, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence against Babu Lal due to the recovery of the dead body from his house and the circumstances surrounding it. However, there was no substantial evidence to convict Babu Singh under Section 201, as the recovery of articles purchased with stolen money did not prove his involvement in concealing the murder.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1962, acquitting Babu Singh of both charges and ordering his release. Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 1962 was partly allowed; Babu Lal's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 was set aside, but his conviction and sentence under Section 201 were confirmed.