Retreated confessions and lesser liability: voluntary confessions remain usable, and screening the offender may replace a murder finding.

A voluntary confession is not rendered inadmissible merely because it is later retracted, as constitutional protection against self-incrimination does not exclude a confession free from inducement, threat, or promise; the objection to use of the confessions therefore failed. On the facts, Kalawati's confession was unsafe as proof of murder, but the evidence supported that she made a false account to shield the offender, so her liability was confined to causing disappearance of evidence and screening the offender under Section 201 rather than murder. Ranjit Singh's murder conviction was sustained, but his sentence was reduced to transportation for life in light of the lapse of time and mitigating circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether retracted confessions recorded under the Criminal Procedure Code could be used against the accused consistently with the constitutional protection against self-incrimination; (ii) whether, on the evidence, Kalawati was liable for murder or only for causing disappearance of evidence and screening the offender; and (iii) whether Ranjit Singh's sentence for murder should be reduced.

Issue (i): Whether retracted confessions recorded under the Criminal Procedure Code could be used against the accused consistently with the constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Analysis: A confession is admissible if it is voluntary and free from inducement, threat, or promise. The constitutional protection against being compelled to be a witness against oneself does not exclude a voluntary confession merely because it is later retracted. The weight of a retracted confession is reduced, and the confession of one accused is not evidence against a co-accused as substantive proof, but those matters affect probative value and not admissibility on constitutional grounds.

Conclusion: The constitutional objection to the use of the confessions failed.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the evidence, Kalawati was liable for murder or only for causing disappearance of evidence and screening the offender.

Analysis: The evidence made it unsafe to accept Kalawati's confession at face value as proof of her participation in the murder. At the same time, the circumstances showed that she must have witnessed the attack, knew or believed her first statement to the police to be false, and made that false version to shield the offender. The line between abetment of murder and concealment of the offence was treated as thin, but the safer course was to confine the finding to Section 201.

Conclusion: Kalawati was not convicted of murder, but was rightly convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (iii): Whether Ranjit Singh's sentence for murder should be reduced.

Analysis: The conviction for murder was sustained, but the Court took into account the lapse of time since the occurrence and the possible motive of preventing cruelty to a helpless woman when considering the proper sentence.

Conclusion: Ranjit Singh's conviction was maintained, but the sentence of death was reduced to transportation for life.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of with partial success to Kalawati, whose murder conviction was set aside and replaced by a conviction under Section 201, while Ranjit Singh's conviction for murder stood but his sentence was substituted with a lesser penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary confession is not rendered inadmissible by later retraction on constitutional grounds, and where the evidence does not safely establish participation in murder, the Court may sustain conviction for the distinct offence of screening the offender or causing disappearance of evidence if the proved facts warrant it.

---