SHER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been presented from jail, but Shri Daijit Singh, Advocate, a distinguished member of the High Court Bar, has been very kind to agree to assist me as amicus curiae. The Court is thankful to him for his valuable assistance. Sher Singh appellant has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 326. I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was charged under section 307, I. P. C., but on evidence, his case was found to be covered only by section 326, I. P. C. The prosecution case is that Smt. Suresha, an Aya in the employment of Shri Jagat Narain Khanna in Darya Ganj, Delhi, was .stabbed on her back with a knife on 22nd August, 1967 at about 7.30 p. m. The accused who is stated to have been employed with the same employer for some time on an earlier occasion, was alleged to have inflicted the said injury. Smt. Suresha, the victim of this alleged attack by the accused, has not en porduced in the witness-box because, as observed by Shri D. R. Khanna. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, she was not traceable. The conviction is principally based on a confession made by Sher Singh, though retracted at the trial. The accused, it may be pointed out, was not represented by any counsel in his trial just as he was not represented by his own counsel in this Court.

(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge after summarising the evidence in the case, dealt with the question of the guilt of the accused in the following words :-

(3.) Before considering the material on the record, I should like to state the legal position in regard to confessions. A confession, though retracted at a later stage, can certainly, as a matter of statutory law, be accepted by Court for sustaining the conviction of the confessor because there is no legal bar, but usually the Courts, by way of prudence and practice, require some independent corroboration of the confessional statement in material particulars before convicting the confessing accused thereon. The amount of corroboration necessary as a safeguard of truth and, therefore, for sustaining the conviction is always a question of fact to be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case. Section 164, Cr. P. C., empowers certain Magistrates to record statements and confessions. Sub-section (3) of this section lays down that a Magistrate shall, before recording any confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him. It also prohibits Magistrates from recording such concessions unless, upon questioning the person making it, the Magistrate has reason to believe that it was made voluntarily and while recording such conefession, he is also obliged to make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect :-