1968 (12) TMI 111 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in presenting the accused before a Magistrate.
2. Voluntariness and truth of the confessions.
3. Corroboration of the extra-judicial confessions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Presenting the Accused Before a Magistrate:
The first contention raised was that the accused were not presented before a Magistrate until the 23rd of March 1965, violating Section 104(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which requires that an arrested person be presented "without unnecessary delay." The court noted that Section 104(2) comes into operation only after a person is "arrested." The court found that the accused were presented within 24 hours of their formal arrest, aligning with Article 22(2) of the Constitution. The court also examined whether the accused were in custody from the time they were intercepted. It was determined that although there was some restriction on their movements, this did not equate to formal arrest. The court concluded that there was no unnecessary delay in presenting the accused before a Magistrate, and the confessions were not obtained under compulsion.

2. Voluntariness and Truth of the Confessions:
The second issue was whether the confessions were voluntary and true. The court examined the circumstances under which the confessions were made. It was argued that the accused were under some form of custody that could imply compulsion. However, the court found no evidence of inducement, threat, or promise that would render the confessions involuntary under Section 24 of the Evidence Act. The court also rejected the argument that the confessions were not true, noting that minor discrepancies in the narratives did not undermine their overall credibility. The court found no intrinsic or extrinsic evidence to suggest that the confessions were false.

3. Corroboration of the Extra-Judicial Confessions:
The third issue was whether the extra-judicial confessions required corroboration. The court acknowledged that it is prudent to seek corroboration for retracted confessions. It found abundant corroboration in the case, including the immediate admission by accused No. 2 that there was gold in the car's dicky and the suspicious movements of the car at night. The court also addressed the non-examination of the car driver, Bapu, who could have provided additional context. However, it declined to draw an adverse inference from his absence, noting that no objection was raised during the trial about his non-examination. The court concluded that the confessions, along with other evidence, established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences of both accused were confirmed. The accused were ordered to surrender to bail within two weeks.