Mandatory confession procedure and complete circumstantial chain determine conviction and acquittal in murder prosecution.

A Magistrate-recorded confession that was not signed in the manner required by the Code was treated as non-compliant with mandatory procedure and could not be relied on against a co-accused, nor recast as an extra-judicial confession; the co-accused was given the benefit of doubt and the conviction was set aside. By contrast, the remaining accused were convicted on circumstantial evidence because the proved facts-motive, presence near the scene, conduct after the murder, medical evidence, recoveries, and blood-stained articles-formed a complete chain inconsistent with innocence and proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment restates that each circumstance must be established and the chain must unerringly point to guilt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confession recorded from an accused without compliance with the mandatory requirements of recording and signing under the Code could be relied upon against a co-accused. (ii) Whether the circumstantial evidence proved a complete chain sufficient to sustain the conviction of the remaining accused.

Issue (i): Whether the confession recorded from an accused without compliance with the mandatory requirements of recording and signing under the Code could be relied upon against a co-accused.

Analysis: The confession was recorded under the procedural provisions governing magistrate-recorded confessions, but it was not signed by the maker as required. The requirement of recording the confession in the prescribed manner was treated as mandatory, and non-compliance rendered the confession unreliable and inadmissible. The document could not be recast as an extra-judicial confession merely to salvage it, since a judicial confession not legally recorded cannot be used in that form. In the absence of that confession and in the absence of corroborative evidence, the co-accused could not be fixed with guilt on the basis of suspicion.

Conclusion: The co-accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the circumstantial evidence proved a complete chain sufficient to sustain the conviction of the remaining accused.

Analysis: The proven circumstances included illicit relationship, motive, travel to the scene, presence near the house of the deceased, the time and manner of death, the return to the vehicle soon after the murder, and recoveries pursuant to disclosure statements. Those circumstances were held to form a complete and consistent chain incompatible with innocence. The evidence of the car driver and cleaner, the medical evidence, the recoveries, and the blood-stained articles together established the participation of the remaining accused beyond reasonable doubt. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the court applied the settled rule that each circumstance must be proved and the chain must point unerringly to guilt.

Conclusion: The convictions of the remaining accused were sustained and their appeals were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment set aside the conviction of the co-accused who could not be linked through admissible proof, while affirming the conviction and life sentence of the other accused on a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: A confession recorded by a Magistrate must strictly comply with the mandatory statutory procedure, and a circumstantial case succeeds only when every proved circumstance forms a complete chain excluding innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

---