Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction for conspiracy and customs offences could be sustained when the prosecution case substantially depended on a confession alleged to have been obtained under coercion.
Analysis: The surrounding circumstances showed that the appellant's alleged confession was not safe to accept as voluntary or trustworthy. The court found that the physical condition of a co-accused, the absence of a satisfactory prosecution explanation for injuries, the early complaint alleging threat and assault, and the overall manner of interrogation made it highly probable that the statement was procured by pressure from persons in authority. Circumstances such as the appellant being seen near the flat, possession of keys, and wearing a similar bandi were held not to be inconsistent with innocence and were insufficient on their own to support conviction once the confession was excluded.
Conclusion: The confession was treated as involuntary and unreliable, and the remaining circumstances were inadequate to sustain the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: A confession obtained by inducement, threat, or coercion from persons in authority cannot be treated as voluntary or trustworthy, and a conviction resting mainly on such a confession cannot stand.