BALMAKUND Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to this Bench is stated as follows by the Division Bench before whom the appeal came for hearing: The appellant in this case made a confession. As regards the fact of the murder, we have no doubt that he killed his wife, but in a, confession he alleges certain reasons which, if true, would have an important bearing upon the nature of our decision. The matters alleged by him in justification appear to us so unworthy of belief that no Court could act upon them. We are however told that the case of Jagdeo V/s. Emperor [1917] l8 Cr.L.J. 356 compels us to accept the confession as a whole, and that we are not able to choose that part of the confession which appeals to our reason and reject that which strikes us untrue and absurd. This is a matter of considerable importance, and it is desirable to have this question settled by a Pull Bench.

(2.) The present Full Bench was accordingly appointed to decide the question "whether the authority quoted above was correctly decided." If is important to note first that in this case there was no evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused other than the confession.

(3.) The confession may be described as comprising two elements: (a) an account of how the accused killed the woman; and (b) an account of his reasons for doing so; the former element being inculpatory and the latter exculpatory; and the question we have to answer may be stated as follows: Can the Court, if it is of opinion that the inculpatory part commands belief and the exculpatory part is inherently incredible, act upon the former and refuse to act upon the latter?