ABDUL JOBBAR MOLLA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the appellants have been convicted of dacoity and in addition to that the first five appellants have been convicted of an offence punishable under section 412, Indian Penal Code. Their appeal is from the jail. The learned Judges presiding over the undefended Bench thought that this was a case in which the appellants should have some assistance, and at their request Mr. Mukherjee has been good enough to argue the appeal as an amicus curias on their behalf. I need hardly say that we are extremely grateful to him for so doing. The evidence is of the type which one usually finds in these easesection In the first place, there is a confession made by appellant 1. There is evidence of identification supported by a test identification; finally there is evidence that some of the stolen property was recovered from the houses of individual appellants.

(2.) The only evidence of any value against appellant 1 is this confession. Mr. Mukherjee has contended that this was inadmisssible in evidence, and ought not to have been allowed to go to the jury at all. After examining the circumstances in which it was made we have no hesitation in accepting that contention. There is a ring of truth about the explanation given by this appellant in the statement which he made under section 342. This appellant is a professional criminal of such notoriety that he is what is known as a C. T. Act Dagi. As such he has to pay periodical visits to the thana. He paid one of these visits the day before his confession was recorded. The police ar rested him. He was taken to Narayanganj where he was produced before the Magistrate. When questioned by the Magistrate he stated that he was not confessing with any hopes that he would be acquitted or obtain any lighter sentence and so forth. Of course, if such hopes had been given to him, he would certainly not admit it at that time; but he had to give some explanation of his desire to confess. The explanation was that he had committed a sin but he did not desire to add to his sin by committing the further sin of lying; it was therefore necessary for him to confess and tell the truth.

(3.) Now, this is not a crime posionelle, which sometimes leads to remorse and in connexion with which a genuine confession may very easily be made. I am bound to say that I am always rather sceptical when the result of an interview between a professional criminal and a police officer is a sudden desire to confess. I have no doubt whatever that the explanation of penitence and a sudden dislike to lying is not a true explanation. The inevitable result is that this confession must have been made at the instigation of the police. It should, therefore, not have been submitted to the jury at all.