Voluntary extra-judicial confession and discovery statement were held admissible despite retraction and judicial custody

A retracted extra-judicial confession is admissible if made voluntarily and appears trustworthy, though it requires corroboration in material particulars; the fact that it was not recorded under Section 164 CrPC does not by itself exclude it. A statement leading to discovery is also admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act where the accused was under effective police control, even if formally in judicial custody, because "custody" is not confined to post-arrest police custody. The document states that the convictions were affirmed, the death sentence was upheld, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a retracted extra-judicial confession made by the accused to a Magistrate was admissible and could be acted upon on the facts of the case; (ii) Whether the accused's statement to the Circle Inspector, made while in magisterial custody but before formal police custody was ordered, was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Issue (i): Whether a retracted extra-judicial confession made by the accused to a Magistrate was admissible and could be acted upon on the facts of the case.

Analysis: A confession made outside the statutory procedure for recording judicial confessions is not excluded merely because it is extra-judicial. Its admissibility depends on the surrounding circumstances, the person to whom it was made, and whether it appears voluntary and trustworthy. A retracted confession requires corroboration in material particulars, but the need for corroboration is not confined to judicial confessions. A spontaneous confession made to a Magistrate who was not yet concerned with the investigation was treated as highly probative, and the fact that it was not recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, did not render it inadmissible.

Conclusion: The retracted extra-judicial confession was admissible and entitled to substantial weight, subject to corroboration.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused's statement to the Circle Inspector, made while in magisterial custody but before formal police custody was ordered, was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: The expression "custody of a police officer" in Section 27 was construed broadly so as not to confine it to formal custody after arrest. The controlling consideration was whether the accused had submitted to police control or interrogation with the consciousness that he was, at least temporarily, under such control. On that view, a statement leading to discovery was admissible even though the accused was formally in judicial custody at the time, and the surrounding conduct of the accused in leading the officers to the body and relevant spots furnished independent corroboration in any event. Sections 25 and 26 were treated as the context in which Section 27 operates as an exception.

Conclusion: The statement was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were affirmed on both counts, the death sentence was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An extra-judicial confession is admissible if voluntary and reliable, though retracted confessions require corroboration in material particulars; and "custody" under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is not confined to formal post-arrest police custody but includes a situation where the accused is in effective police control and makes a statement leading to discovery.

---