ON Criminal Appeal No 127 of 1957
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 12th February 1957 of the Madras High Court in Crimi nal Appeal No 728 of 1956 and Referred Trial No 144 of 1956 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 23rd October 1956 of the Court of the Addl
Sessions Judge of the Coimbatore Division in section C Nos
120  135 of 1956
HJ Umrigar and T section Venkataraman for the appellant
PRama Reddy and T M Sen for the respondent
September 17
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOVINDA MENON J Before the Additional Judge of the court of Sessions of Coimbatore Division there were four accused of whom the first accused Subramania Goundan has now appealed to this court against the confirmation by the High Court of Madras of the conviction and sentence by the trial court by which 430 on charges Nos 1  2 he was sentenced to death and also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years on charge No 3
Special leave to appeal was granted by order of this court dated the 6th of May 1957
Along with the appellant were tried three others of whom the second accused Marappa Goundan was his father
The third accused Karuppa was the grandson of the second accused s paternal uncle while the fourth accused Iyyavu was an agnate in the fourth degree of the second accused
It is thus seen that all the accused were related to each other
The learned Sessions Judge framed four charges of which the first was against the appellant that he on June 6 1956 at night in the Village of Vengakalpalayam committed the murder of Marappa Goundan by cutting him with an aruval while the second charge was that at about the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction he commit ted the murder of Muthu Goundan by stabbing him with a spear
The third count of the charge was against the first and the second accused that they conjointly committed the offence of attempt to murder by stabbing one Munia Goundan with a spear and knife and the last count of the charge was against accused Nos 3  4 that they abetted the commission of the offence of attempt to murder of Munia Goundan by being present on the scene
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos 2 3  4 but convicted and sentenced the appellant before us in the manner stated above
The village where the offences were committed was faction ridden in which the appellant his father and others took one side whereas the two deceased individuals along with Munia Goundan and others former the leaders of the rival faction
It was also stated that the appellant s father was the leading man of the village having been assigned that dignity by the consent of the villagers
The prosecution case is that the dignity of the appellant s family had been offended by certain actions of the rival party and it was apprehended by the appellants father that his prestige and 431 influence as the chief man of the village were being gradually undermined and usurped by the rival group
About three days prior to the occurrence which took place on the night between the 6th and the 7th of June 1956 Munia Goundan is said to have stated to the hearing of the appel lant that he Munia Goundan would wipe out the appellant s father and his partisans and if that were not possible in a spirit of humiliation Munia Goundan would shave off his moustache
It is further alleged that the two deceased individuals also proclaimed words to that effect
Angered at this threat of extermination of his family and inflamed by the enmity due to the faction that had already existed the appellant according to the prosecution having armed himself with an aruval a sickle a spear and a knife left his house on the night of the 6th and 7th June 1956 proceeded to a place known as Chettithottam where the de ceased Marappa Goundan was sleeping in his field shed and cut him on the neck with the aruval and inflicted other injuries on him before leaving the place
Thereafter while on his way to the house of Munia Goundan to do away with him the appellant met the deceased Muthu Goundan who was coming in the opposite direction and thinking that Muthu Goundan would catch him inflicted a stab wound on Muthu Goundan
After this the appellant went to the house of Munia Goundan P W 5 and stabbed him also
Not being content with committing these crimes he set fire to the shed of Sennimalai Goundan P W 4 who was also a partisan of the rival faction which lay at a distance about four furlongs from the village
Thereafter the appellant re turned to his own garden and lay down
Karuppa Goundan PW 1 hearing cries and noise from the direction of the house of Munia Goundan ran towards that place followed by Sennimalai Goundan PW 4 who similarly heard the same cries
They found Munia Goundan PW 5 with injuries on him and also saw the shed of Sennimalai Goundan PW 4 aflame
At this PW 4 and PW 5 proceed ed to the burning shed and on the way saw Natarajan 432 PW 10 the son of the deceased Marappa Coundan weeping and lamenting in his field
Reaching the place wherefrom PW 10 was wailing PW 4 and PW 5 saw Marappa Goundan lying dead on a cot in s the shed with injuries
It is in evidence that the witnesses then saw the shed of PW 4 completely burnt down and after that Karuppa Goundan and Sennimalai Goundan went to the house of the village Munsif who was living about four miles away from the village and gave a report about the occurrence at about 5 am on 7 6 1956 and which is on record as Exhibit PI Information reached the Sub Inspector of Police of Avanashi PW17 at 8 30 am who reached the place of occurrence at 11 am
Investigation was then started the details of which it is unnecessary to mention
At about 12 noon near a temple in the village finding the appellant there the SubInspector of Police arrested him after which the appellant made a state ment the admissible portions of which are marked as Exhibit P 13
From the appellant material objects Nos
10 and 11 a bloodstained drawer and a baniyan respectively worn by him were seized and the appellant thereafter took the Police Officer to his garden and took out M 0 12 a blood stained bed sheet from a rafter in the garden shed which according to the prosecution was used by the appellant for wrapping himself up after he lay down in his shed subsequent to the commission of the crime
Statements were taken by the Sub Inspector from a number of persons including Natarajan PW 10 son of Marappa Goundan Nachimuthu Goundan PW 11 son of Muthu Goundan Munia Goundan PW 5 and others
We do not think it necessary to describe the details of the investigation and the examination of witnesses regarding the accusations against the acquitted persons
On June 9 1956 at about 3 50 pm the appellant was pro duced before Sri P I Veeraswami Sub Magistrate P W 7 who administered the necessary warnings under the Crimi nal Rules of Practice and being satisfied that the appellant wanted to make a voluntary statement he was given two day s time for 433 reflection till June 11 1956 on which date the appellant was produced before the same Magistrate at 3 50 pm
The same warnings were again administered to him and the Magis trate was satisfied that the statement about to be made was a voluntary one
Thereafter it was recorded in the appellant s own words read over to him and acknowledged by him to be correct
This statement in which the appellant confessed to having committed the murder of Marappa Goundan and Muthu Goundan and also inflicted injuries on Munia Goundan on the night in question is exhibited as P 3A
In order to prove the case against the appellant the main reliance on the side of the prosecution was on Natarajan PW 10 the eye witness to the attack on his father Marappa Goundan and with regard to the murder of Muthu Goundan the case rested on the testimony of Nachimuthu Goundan PW 11 son of Muthu Goundan who is said to have told the witness PW 12 that the appellant had stabbed Muthu with a spear
Subbanna Goundan PW 12 a neighbour of Muthu Goundan also spoke to the fact that he heard Muthu Goundan saying that the appellant had stabbed him with a spear
The assault on Munia Goundan PW 5 is spoken to by himself
In addition to this evidence the prosecution rested its case on the confession of the appellant 
Before the learned Sessions Judge the appellant denied the offence and retracted the confession made by him on the ground that the Sub Inspector and the Circle Inspector of Police threat ened to implicate the appellant s father and five others in the crime if he did not confess and that was the reason why he made a false confession
The learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of Natara jan P W 10 Nachimuthu Goundan PW 11 and Subbanna Goundan PW 12 with regard to the murders and also that of Munia Goundan PW 5 and Komaraswami Goundan PW 6 with regard to the attack on Munia Goundan
He also held that the confession Exhibit P 3A was voluntary and true and on the footing of the oral evidence 434 corroborated amply by the confession the appellant was convicted and sentenced
In the High Court Somasundaram J who delivered the judgment of the court was not inclined to place reliance on the oral testimony of PW 5 PW 10 and PW 1 1
The learned Judge was of the opinion that it was not safe to act on the evidence of Natarajan PW 10 and convict the appellant of the offence of murder of Marappa Goundan
The High Court did not accept the evidence of Nachimuthu Goundan PW 11 and Subbanna Goundan PW 12
In the same strain the judgment of the High Court states that it is not safe to act on the evidence of Munia Goundan PW 5 and PW 6 Komaraswami Goundan
The conclusion was that the oral evidence did not reach that standard of proof necessary for reliance to sustain a conviction but the learned judge upheld the conviction on the ground that as the confession was voluntary and true it can be believed though the same was retracted
Opinion was also expressed that the confession was corroborated by the recovery of M 0
12 as a result of the statement made by the appellant which contained human blood for which there was no explana tion whatsoever
Corroboration was also afforded by the existence of human blood on M Os
10  11
The question therefore before us is whether the High Court erred in law in agreeing with the trial court regarding the guilt of the appellant
Had the High Court come to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs 5 10  11 can be accepted in order to sustain the conviction of the appellant the question would have been simpler of solution and alternatively were this court inclined to appraise the credibility or otherwise of their testimony whether a different conclusion would have been arrived at is unnecessary to speculate
On a perusal of the evidence of these witnesses it cannot be said that their testimony is such as should be relegated to the realm of disbelief Even so we have decided to proceed on the footing that the testimony of the important prosecution witnesses would not be sufficient 435 for a conclusion that the appellant is guilty beyond reason able doubt
The ultimate approach therefore to the question should be whether the confession exhibit P 3A is entitled to credence and be acted upon
The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Umrigar was at pains to show firstly that the confes sion was not voluntary  secondly it is not true and lastly that even if these  two tests are answered in the affirma tive so far as the prosecution is concerned it would be very unsafe to act on this retracted confession which according to him was resiled from as early as an opportuni ty occurred
Dealing with the first question he pointed out that the appellant was produced at 3 45 pm on June 9 1956 before the Sub Magistrate in the court hall which was cleared of all police officials and the Jail Warder alone was placed in charge thereafter the Sub Magistrate gave the necessary warnings and enough time was given for reflection
The criticism levelled by the appellant s counsel is that despite these beneficient actions still the influence of the police on the appellant still remained and that even at the time when the confession was given
it cannot be said that the appellant was free from police pressure
Our attention was invited to passages in cross examination of PW 7 where he had stated that on both the occasions when the appellant was produced for recording of the confession the Police Constable in guard at the Sub Jail was in charge and further that there is a gate way between the Police Station and the court and that gate way is the approach to the Subjail
From these circumstances inference is sought to be drawn that though during the relevant periods the incarceration of the appellant was in a Sub Jail still he was under police custody and influence and therefore there was no clearance of the supervening police control on him in order to make his mind free from all such influence
We have carefully gone through the questions put by the Magis trate not only on June 9 1956 when the appellant was given time for reflection but also on those on June 11 1956 when he gave the confessional statement and we are satisfied 56 436 that nothing could be said against the procedure followed
The learned Magistrate has clearly conformed to the proce dure prescribed by sections 164 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code as well as to the directions laid down in the Madras Criminal Rules of Practice as a preliminary to the recording of the confession
The meagre cross examination of the Sub Magistrate has not brought out any material circumstances which would in any way detract from the satisfactory was in which he has performed his official duty
In the en dorsement at the foot of the confessional statement the Sub Magistrate PW 7 says that he had explained to the appel lant that he the appellant was not bound to make a confes sion and if he does so it may be used as evidence against him and the endorsement further goes on to add that the Sub Magistrate believed that the confession was voluntarily made
The next remark is that it was taken in his presence and hearing and read over to the confessor who admitted it to be correct
But it is urged against the voluntary nature of the confession that an inducement was given by the Magistrate by the manner in which the questions were put
One of the questions was Why do you want to give a state ment and the answer given was It is suspected that those who have committed murder are others
To prove that it is I who have stabbed I am giving the statement  The above was the question put and the answer given on June 9 1956
On June 11 1956 the question and the answer were as follows  Q
For what purpose are you going to make a statement  A Others will be implicated in the case for murder I alone have committed murder
I am going to give the state ment to that effect
 When he resiled from the confession in the Sessions Court the appellant stated that the Sub Inspector and the Circle Inspector went to him in Sub Jail and threatened to impli cate his father accused No 2 in the lower court and five others unless he confessed
Therefore it was on this account that the statement exhibit P 3A was made before the Magistrate which the 437 accused alleged was neither true nor voluntary
The argu ment of the learned counsel is that in order to save his father and some others the appellant implicated himself and confessed falsely to an act which he did not commit
Criti cism has been levelled against the mode and manner in which the question was put as directly inducing the appellant to immolate himself and thereby save his kith and kin
We are asked to say that the appellant being an emotional young man of noble sentiments and spirit did not desire to have his father implicated in a crime of this sort and what may be ascribed as a filial obligation was performed in trying to get release of his father from the enmeshes of the po lice
Such an argument we are afraid cannot carry any conviction
The form of the question is prescribed by the Criminal Rules of Practice and if the officer before whom the confession is made fails to put it then his failure will be criticised as blameworthy
We do not feel that any nefarious object existed in putting a perfectly innocuous and obligatory question to the appellant asking him Why he wants to make a statement Further PW 17 the Investi gating Sub Inspector has clearly denied the alleged induce ment by the police that if be did not confess others including his father would be implicated in the case
It is therefore difficult to conclude that there was any kind of inducement or threat as a result of which an involuntary confession was made
A complaint is made by the learned counsel that before the Committing Magistrate no question under section 342 Cr P C was put to the appellant with regard to the confession and therefore he had no opportunity to put forward his com plaint about the confession until the case came before the Sessions court
No doubt a scrutiny of the statement of the accused before the Sub Magistrate does not reveal any spe cific questions as having been put to him about the confes sion but the fact remains that the confession was exhibited before the Committing court and the contents were known to the appellant then and there
Under section 207 A sub cl
3 of the Criminal Procedure Code even at the commencement of the enquiry into a case triable by a 438 Sessions Court the Committing Magistrate is enjoined when the accused is brought before him to satisfy himself that the documents mentioned in section 173 have been furnished to the accused and if it is found that they have not so far been furnished it is the duty of the Magistrate to cause the same to be furnished
Section 173 sub cl
4 makes it obligatory upon the Police to furnish the accused free of cost with a copy of the police report the FIR under section 154 and all other documents on which the prosecution propose to rely including statements and confessions if any record ed under section 164
The result therefore is that even before the commencement of the committal proceedings the  appellant had been provided with the copy of the confessional state ment sought to be relied upon for justifying a prima facie case against him
We do not think granting that the confession was not placed in the fore front as a piece of evidence against the accused in the Committing Court such a default if it is one would in any way show that the confes sion was involuntary
The second aspect of the learned counsel s contention is that the confession is not true
In Sarawan Singh and Harbans Singh v The State of Punjab 1 this court ex pressed the opinion that for the purpose of finding out whether a confession is true it would be necessary to examine the same and compare it with the rest of the prose cution evidence and the probabilities of the case and Mr Umrigar relying on these observations urges that on a com parison of the confession with the other parts of the prose cution evidence the irresistible conclusion should follow that on the face of it the confessional statement is untrue
The material portions of the confessional document concern ing the actual crime are to the following effect  So on Wednesday night at about 11 O clock I took aruval spear and knife sharp on both sides and went to Chetty Thottam near our garden
Marappa Goundan then was lying on the cot in his shed and sleeping
I cut him with aruval on the neck
While coming from there to the house of Muniappa Gouildan 1 Criminal Appeals NOS
22 and 23 Of 1957 decided April 10 1957
439 in our village Muthu Goundail came opposite to me in our village street
Thinking that he came to catch me I stabbed him
The aruval fell there itself
Then I went to Muniappa Gouudan s house and stabbed Mu niappa Goundan
Afterwards I set fire to the shed of Sennimalai Goundan at a distance of four furlongs to our village
Then I came to our garden and lay From this according to the defence counsel it is seen that only one cut was inflicted with an aruval on the neck of Marappa Goundan and a single stab was given to Muthu Goun dan
Similarly Munia Goundan was only stabbed once but in exhibit P 4 the postmortem certificate on the body of Marappa Goundan there are as many as thirteen injuries of which the neck injuries were 4 5 and 6 the others being on other parts of the body
It is therefore urged that the unques tionable fact of the existence of a number of injuries on Marappa belies the truth of the confession in that only one cut was given on the neck
Similarly the confession does not make any mention of the presence of any One else when Munia Goundan was stabbed though both P W 5 and PW 6 have deposed that there were three persons who were coming northward from the shed of Marappa Goundan at the time PW 5 was stabbed
The statement made by PW 5 exhibit D 2 before the Medical Officer on June 8 1956 was also to the effect that more persons than one were involved in the attack on him
The confession also does not make any refer ence to the recovery of the incriminating articles such as M 0
12 as a result of a statement made by the appellant to the police officer
From these circumstances we are asked to say that the confession cannot be true
Mr Umrigar urges that the learned Judges of the High Court have not paid sufficient attention to this method of examining how far a confession is true by comparing it with the other evidence in the case in accordance with the test laid down by this court
Even in the absence of such comparison in the judgment of the High Court we do not think that on that ground it can be predicated that the appellant made an untrue statement voluntarily
After all the absence of elaborate 440 details in a confession cannot brand it as false
There is no statement in the confession which is contrary to the oral evidence though the details put forward when the witnesses were examined in court do not appear in extenso in the confession and for that reason we are not prepared to say that the confession
in untrue
The next question is whether there is corroboration of the confession since it has been retracted
A confession of a crime by a person who has perpetrated it is usually the outcome of penitence and remorse and in normal circumstances is the best evidence against the maker
The question has very often arisen whether a retracted confession may form the basis of conviction if believed to be true and volun tarily made
For the purpose of arriving at this conclusion the court has to take into consideration not only the rea sons given for making the confession or retracting it but the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the same
It may be remarked that there can be no absolute rule that a retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless the same is corroborated materially
It was laid down in certain cases one such being Kesava Pillai alias Koralan and another and Kesava Pillai alias Thillai Kannu Pillai 1 that if the reasons given by an accused person for retracting a confes sion are on the face of them false the confession may be acted upon as it stands and without any corroboration
But the view taken by this court on more occasions than one is that as a matter of prudence and caution which has sancti fied itself into a rule of law a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated one of the latest cases being Balbir Singh Versus State of Punjab 2 but it does not necessari ly mean that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused must be separately and independently corroborated nor is it essen tial that the corroboration must come from facts and circum stances discovered after the confession was made
It would be sufficient in our opinion that the 1 ILR 2 AIR 1957 SC 216
441 general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in the confession
In this connection it would be profitable to contrast a retracted confession with the evidence of an approver or an accomplice
Though under section 133 of the Evidence Act a conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of witnesses illustration b to section 114 lays down that a court may pre sume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars
In the case of such a person on his own showing he is a depraved and debased individual who having taken part in the crime tries to exculpate himself and wants to fasten the liability on another
In such circumstances it is absolutely necessary that what he has deposed must be corroborated in material particulars
In contrasting this with the statement of a person making a confession who stands on a better footing one need only find out when there is a retraction whether the earlier statement which was the result of remorse repentance and contrition was voluntary and true or not and it is with that object that corroboration is sought for
Not infrequently one is apt to fall in error in equating a retracted confession with the evidence of an accomplice andtherefore it is advisable to clearly understand the distinction between the two
The standards of corroboration in the two are quite different
In the case of the person confessing who has resiled from his statement general corroboration is sufficient while an accomplice s evidence should be corroborated in material particulars
In addition the court must feel that the reasons given for the retrac tion in the case of a confession are untrue
Applying this test to the present case we are of the opin ion that when the appellant has given no satisfactory expla nation for the presence of human blood on material objects Nos 10 11  12 it follows that the blood of the murdered was on these material objects
The reasons for retraction are also false
A criticism is levelled that the Chemical Examiner s report does not show the extent of blood on MO 442 No 12 the bed sheet in which the appellant wrapped him self after the offence
All that the document states is that among other items it is also stained with humanblood but Mr Umrigar argues that this description only shows that there would have been only a speck or a spot of blood on the bed sheet for according to him as a matter of fact there should have been a large quantity of blood on the hands of the appellant if he had without washing used a bed sheet thereafter large patches of blood are likely to be present on the bed sheet
If that is so the mere fact that the presence of blood is described as stains would show that the prosecution case cannot be true
We do not feel inclined to put such a restricted meaning on the word I stain  Stained with human blood  is an expression commonly found in Chemical Examiner s reports and it does not necessarily refer to specks of blood alone
We do not think that any inference can be drawn from the use of the word stain  in the Chemical Examiner s report that there was not suffi cient blood on the bed sheet
The appellant has given no explanation as to how blood came to be present on material objects Nos
10 to 12
Agreeing with the High Court that this is corroboration of the confession made by the appel lant we are of the opinion that the confession can be acted upon
If that is so the appellant s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt
The appeal is dismissed
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was charged with murder
The eye witnesses against him were not relied upon
He made a confession before a magistrate
One of the questions put by the magis trate to the appellant before recording the confession was  For what purpose are you going to make a statement To this he replied  Others will be implicated in the case for murder I alone have committed murder
 It was argued that an inducement was given by the magistrate by the manner in which the question was put
The next day after the murder  a drawer a baniyan and a bed sheet all stained with human blood were recovered from the appellant for which no expla nation was given by him
The confession was retracted before the Court of Session
These recoveries 429 were used as corroboration of the confession
It was con tended that this was no corroboration
Held that the confession was voluntary and the putting by the magistrate of a perfectly innocuous question which was prescribed by the Madras Criminal Rules of Practice did not amount to an inducement to make a confession
Held further that there can be no absolute rule that retracted confession cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated materially
But as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into a rule of law a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless it is corroborated
It is not necessary that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused should be separately and independently corroborated nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discov ered after the confession was made
It would be sufficient if the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in the confession
In the instant case the recovery of clothes stained with human blood for which the appellant gave no explanation was sufficient corroboration of the confession
Balbir Singh vs State of Panjab AIR 1957 SC 216 relied on