Mandatory confession procedure and complete circumstantial chain govern admissibility and murder conviction in a dual-accused case.

A confession recorded without compliance with the mandatory procedure, including the maker's signature, was treated as inadmissible where the making of the statement was disputed; it could not be recharacterised as an extra-judicial confession to cure the defect. In the absence of a legally admissible confession and corroboration, suspicion and last-seen evidence were insufficient, so the wife-accused received the benefit of doubt and her conviction was set aside. By contrast, the remaining accused were convicted on circumstantial evidence because the prosecution proved motive, presence near the scene, the manner and timing of death, joint travel, and recovery of incriminating articles, forming a complete chain inconsistent with innocence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confession recorded from one accused could be relied upon against the wife-accused in the absence of compliance with the mandatory requirements for recording a confession. (ii) Whether the proved circumstances formed a complete chain sufficient to sustain the conviction of the remaining accused for murder.

Issue (i): Whether the confession recorded from one accused could be relied upon against the wife-accused in the absence of compliance with the mandatory requirements for recording a confession.

Analysis: The confession was recorded without the signature of the maker, and the recording was not in strict compliance with the mandatory procedure governing confessions. The omission was held to be fatal where the making of the statement itself was disputed. A judicial confession not legally recorded could not be treated as an extra-judicial confession to cure the defect. In the absence of a legally admissible confession and corroborative evidence, mere suspicion or the fact that the wife was last seen with the deceased was insufficient to fasten guilt.

Conclusion: The conviction of the wife-accused could not be sustained and she was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Issue (ii): Whether the proved circumstances formed a complete chain sufficient to sustain the conviction of the remaining accused for murder.

Analysis: The prosecution proved the illicit relationship, the motive to remove the deceased, the travel of the accused to Bangalore, their presence near the scene, the time and manner of death, their return together to the vehicle, and the recovery of incriminating articles pursuant to disclosure statements. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be proved and must form a complete chain inconsistent with innocence. The proved facts satisfied that test for the remaining accused.

Conclusion: The conviction of the remaining accused for murder was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The judgment was interfered with only to the extent of setting aside the conviction of the wife-accused, while the convictions and life sentences of the other accused were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the law prescribes a mandatory method for recording a confession, strict compliance is essential and a confession recorded in breach of that method is inadmissible; in circumstantial cases, guilt can be sustained only when the proved circumstances form a complete and consistent chain excluding innocence.

---