Confession admissibility and corroboration: surveillance alone does not prove coercion, and retracted statements may stand with independent support.

The High Court of Bombay held that confessions were not involuntary merely because the accused had been under surveillance or subject to restriction before formal arrest, where there was no material showing inducement, threat, promise, or breach of the requirement of production before a Magistrate without unnecessary delay. It also found the confessions were not inherently false or unreliable, as the alleged inconsistencies were minor and the surrounding evidence supported their substance. The retracted extra-judicial confessions were sufficiently corroborated by the accused's conduct, the presence and recovery of gold from the vehicle, and other attendant circumstances, establishing conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confessions were involuntary and hit by the rule excluding confessions made under inducement, threat or promise on the ground of alleged illegal custody and delay in production before a Magistrate; (ii) whether the confessions were inherently false or unreliable; and (iii) whether the retracted extra-judicial confessions were sufficiently corroborated to establish conscious possession of the gold.

Issue (i): Whether the confessions were involuntary and hit by the rule excluding confessions made under inducement, threat or promise on the ground of alleged illegal custody and delay in production before a Magistrate.

Analysis: The sequence of events showed that the accused were formally arrested only after the customs officer satisfied himself that there was reason to believe they had committed an offence, and they were produced before the Magistrate the next day. The statutory requirement of production without unnecessary delay was therefore not breached. Mere surveillance or restriction on movement before formal arrest was held insufficient to amount, by itself, to coercion or to establish that the confessions were caused by inducement, threat or promise. The record also disclosed no material showing any threat or promise, and the belated allegation of compulsion was unsupported by the evidence.

Conclusion: The confessions were not shown to be involuntary, and the objection based on the exclusionary rule failed against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the confessions were inherently false or unreliable.

Analysis: The alleged inconsistencies were treated as minor or explainable. The manner in which the statements were recorded did not by itself make them untrue, and the surrounding circumstances did not support the suggestion that the confessions were fabricated. The evidence of the raiding party was consistent with the broad narrative in the confessions, and omissions as to minute details did not undermine their credibility.

Conclusion: The confessions were not shown to be false or unreliable.

Issue (iii): Whether the retracted extra-judicial confessions were sufficiently corroborated to establish conscious possession of the gold.

Analysis: Corroboration was found in the accused persons' silence when confronted, the admitted presence of gold in the car, the nocturnal movements of the car, the recovery of a large quantity of gold from the vehicle, and the surrounding conduct of the accused. The Court declined to draw an adverse inference merely because the driver was not examined, since no objection had been raised at trial and the prosecution had not been given an opportunity to explain his absence. The cumulative circumstances were held adequate to support the retracted confessions and to prove conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The retracted confessions were sufficiently corroborated, and the prosecution case was proved.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences were upheld because the confessions were admissible, reliable, and corroborated by independent circumstances establishing guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession is not rendered involuntary merely because the maker was under surveillance or restriction short of formal arrest; to exclude a confession under the Evidence Act, there must be material showing that it was caused by inducement, threat or promise, and a retracted confession may be relied on when the surrounding circumstances provide sufficient corroboration.

---