BALA MAJHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had. the opportunity a privilege of reading the judgment prepared by my learned brother Narasimham, J. I am in entire agreement with him as to the answers proposed therein & associate myself with all the reasons adduced in support thereof. I also agree with the order of conviction & sentences proposed.

(2.) In view, however, of the practical importance of the question posed to standardisation & stabilisation of this branch of law in this State, I propose to add, as given below, some further reasons for my agreement with him. I have, since, seen the judgment proposed by my learned brother Das, J. He agrees with answers proposed. He, however, has added some further reasons not for the purpose of rein, forcing the correctness of the answers but for a different purpose. It seems he should approach the question with a leaning towards admissibility of a confession as a rule leaving it to the accused to be bound thereby to establish the exception by proof of circumstances that would impair its testimonial trustworthiness, This approach, if correct, (with which I do not agree) will seldom make any difference in the practical application thereof, provided the legal safeguards are not disregarded. In criminal law, the accused is entitled to keep mum casting the entire burden on the prosecution to prove his guilt, & that by legally admissible mode of proof. The further reasons that I wish to add will appear from the following paras:

(3.) Before grappling with the problem, in its direct Gearing on the section, I should like to treat the following as the background in which the proposition has to be considered. "Judicial confession" have been authoritatively defined to mean "pleas of guilt on arraignment if made freely by a person in a fit state to plead". The emphasis is on the words under lined (here in inverted commas). These epithets .refer to the state of mind of the accused.