Inadmissible confession after oath did not save the accused, but circumstantial evidence still sustained the conviction.

A confession recorded after administering oath to an accused is inadmissible because Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires confessions to be recorded as confessions, and the Oaths Act does not permit oath or affirmation to be administered to an accused in that context. The statement could therefore not be relied on, but the conviction was nevertheless sustained because the remaining circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain: the eyewitness account, the appellant's presence near the deceased with a weapon, and blood-stained clothes independently proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The extra-judicial confession to a constable was also excluded, but it did not affect the result.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a confessional statement recorded after administering oath to the accused was admissible in evidence. (ii) Whether the conviction could be sustained on circumstantial evidence after exclusion of the confession.

Issue (i): Whether a confessional statement recorded after administering oath to the accused was admissible in evidence.

Analysis: Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires a confession to be recorded as a confession and not as evidence, while the power to administer oath is confined to statements other than confessions. Administering oath to an accused while recording a confession is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and also offends the rule that an accused cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself. Section 4(2) of the Oaths Act, 1969 reinforces that oath or affirmation cannot be administered to an accused in a criminal proceeding unless he is examined as a witness for the defence.

Conclusion: The confessional statement was inadmissible and could not be relied upon.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction could be sustained on circumstantial evidence after exclusion of the confession.

Analysis: Even without the confession, the surrounding circumstances formed a complete chain. The sole eyewitness saw the appellant in heated discussion with the deceased immediately before leaving the spot, and on his return within minutes found the deceased dead and the appellant standing nearby with the weapon. The seizure of the appellant's clothes stained with human blood further corroborated the prosecution case. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 excluded the alleged extra-judicial confession to the constable, but the remaining evidence independently established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld on circumstantial evidence.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the conviction and sentence were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession recorded by a Magistrate after administering oath to the accused is inadmissible, but a conviction may still be sustained if the remaining circumstantial evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

---