Supreme Court: Accused can be convicted on basis of confession if it is retracted at fag end of proceeding

A

court may take into account the retracted confession, but it must look

for the reasons for the making of the confession as well as for its

retraction, and must weigh the two to determine whether the

retraction affects the voluntary nature of the confession or not. If the

court is satisfied that it was retracted because of an after thought or

advice, the retraction may not weigh with the court if the general

facts proved in the case and the tenor of the confession as made

and the circumstances of its making and withdrawal warrant its user.

All the same, the courts do not act upon the retracted confession

without finding assurance from some other sources as to the guilt of

the accused. Therefore, it can be stated that a true confession made

voluntarily may be acted upon with slight evidence to corroborate it,

but a retracted confession requires the general assurance that the

retraction was an after thought and that the earlier statement was

true. ...”

 It is

further clear that the petitioner was kept in judicial custody for almost

twenty months after the confession, over the course of which there

was no likelihood of him being entrusted to police, and still no protest

or attempt to retract the confession was made by him.

27. Further, it is essential to note that the petitioner failed to put forth any

protest against the confessional statement despite having multiple

opportunities during the course of trial. This Court has held earlier in

Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan10 that retractions must be made by the

accused as soon as possible, otherwise there would be a strong presumption

of voluntariness in the confession.

28. The confession, in the present case, was not challenged during stage of

framing of charge or over the course of examination of forty-seven prosecution

witnesses, but instead only partly disputed through a letter written in secret

just before petitioner’s examination under Section 313 of the Code. It is thus

evident that such retraction at the fag-end of the trial, was not natural but

rather meticulously formulated, perhaps as a part of defence strategy. Hence,

there remains no doubt about the voluntariness of the confession of

20.11.2010 or it being unaffected by subsequent retraction.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

INHERENT JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NOS. 446-447 OF 2019

IN

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1174-1175 OF 2019

Manoharan Vs  State by Inspector of Police,

SURYA KANT, J.

Dated:NOVEMBER 07, 2019.

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page