Case: Abdul Rehman Vs. State of Karnataka

Facts of this case have been fully detailed in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.2. The central evidence against the appellant consists of his confessional statement before PW 20, Nemichand, a Taluka Magistrate, Hubli. It appears from a perusal of his evidence where he has categorically stated that he gave necessary warning to the accused that he was not bound to make any confession and if he does so, he may be convicted thereon. The Magistrate has also asserted in his statement that he was satisfied that the confession was true and voluntary. We have also perused the confessional statement of the appellant which gives coherent version of the manner and the circumstances in which the deceased was killed, by the appellant. The High Court has pointed out that the material facts mentioned in the confession have been generally corroborated by the evidence produced in the case.

Reasoning:
There is, however, no evidence to show that the accused was actually arrested on April 26, 1971 as alleged by thethe circumstances, we are unable to accept the first plank of the argument advanced by the learned for the appellant. Secondly, it was argued that as a Judicial Magistrate was available at Hubli, the Investigating Officer should have requisitioned his services rather than that of the Taluka Magistrate. It is no doubt true that it would have been better for the Police to get the confession recorded by a Judicial Magistrate but that by itself is not sufficient to enable us to discard the sole testimony of PW 20. PW 20 has also stated that he was appointed as Magistrate in 1952 and he had been specially empowered to record the confession. Thus PW 20 was a Magistrate of sufficient experience. Having carefully gone through evidence of the witness we are satisfied that he was fully satisfied that the confession was voluntary and was given without any duress or coercion. In the circumstances, therefore, the second contention raised by the appellant must fail.