Behari Adraki vs Emperor

The appellant Behari Adraki has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Gaya u/s 302, read with section 149, and sentenced to transportation for life.

The conviction of Behari has been based on his retracted confession and on two pieces of circumstantial evidence which the learned Sessions Judge accepts namely, that Behari was seen at a well near the place where the body was buried at about midnight, and that he returned to his house after midnight, and was displeased when asked where he had been. Neither of these pieces of evidence can be said to directly corroborate the confession, for there is no mention in the confession, either that Behari went to the well to get water or that he returned home after it, but they are no doubt circumstantial evidence supporting the likelihood of the confession being true.

There is nothing to show that the confession was made otherwise than voluntarily, as shown by the Sessions Judge. The appellant failed to show that there was any coercion employed by the Police or anyone else, or that there was any irregularity in recording the confession. The motive for the murder is well proved, and the confession makes cut that the appellant took an equal share with all the rest in causing the death of Ragho. He did not attempt to minimize the part he took in any way.

It is contended that Jagan was named as an assailant out of enmity, because Jagan had named the appellant as one of the murderers; even if this is the case the appellant still stated that he himself was one of the murderers, as stated by Jagan.

A confession made and retracted must always be open to some suspicion. Deputy Legal Remembrancer on behalf of the Government of Bengal v. Karuna Baistobi (1894) 22 Cal. 164 and Roy v. Thompson (1893) 2 Q. B. 12-62 L. J. M. C.93. But it is sufficient for a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it was voluntarily made and true, Queen v. Sreemurty Mongola (1866) 6 W. R. 81 Cr, Queen v. Bhuttun Rujwun (1869) 12 W. R. 49 Cr, Queen v. Mt. Jema (1867) 8 W. R. 40 Cr, Queen Empress v. Ghorya (1894) 19 Bom. 728, Queen Empress v. Maiku Lal (1897) 20 All. 133=1897 A. W. N. 224, Queen Empress v. Raman (1897) 21 Bom, 316, Queen Empress v. Gingiu (1898) 23 Bom, 316.

When the appellant asserted that the confession was due to Police influence, the learned Sessions Judge made careful inquiry and found that there was no such influence or coercion.

In Queen Empress v. Maiku Lal (1897) 20 All. 133=1897 A. W. N. 224 it was decided that a retracted confession should not necessarily be rejected, if there is no evidence on record to support the confession.

The credibility of such confession in each case is a matter for the Court to decide, according to the circumstances of each particular case. If the Court is of opinion that the confession is true, it is bound to act, so far as the person making it is concerned, on that belief.

In Raghu Bhumij v. Emperor (1920) 1 P. L. T. 241=58 I C. 40=5 Pat. L. J. 430 it was held by this Court that, even a retracted confession may be acted upon so far as the confessing accused is concerned if, after applying the proper tests the Judge is convinced of its truth.

In Cheria v. Emperor (1917) 1 P. L. W. 471=39 I. C. 999 Chamier, C. J., held the conviction, on a retracted confession to be bad, because the accused was a weak person who was likely to be easily influenced; the Court in fact was not satisfied that the confession was voluntarily made.

In Guja Majhi v. Emperor (1917) 2 P. L. J. 80=38 I.C. 1005 this Court held that a conviction, based on a retracted confession which was the only evidence connecting the accused with the murder, was sustainable, and in Emperor v. Kehri (1907) 29 All. 434=4 A. L. J. 310=1907 A. W. N. 140, the Allahabad High Court decided that, as regards the person making it, a retracted confession may, even without any corroborative evidence, form the basis of a conviction.

In Sheo Prasad Koeri v. Emperor (1919) 20 Cr. L. J. 562=52 I. C. 50 Mullick and Atkinson, JJ., laid down that a conviction based on an uncorroborated confession is not bad, if the surrounding circumstances point to the confession having been the outcome of a voluntary act on the part of the confessor and in absence of coercion by the Police or others. The fact of the retraction would not deprive the confession of its voluntary character. It is for the Court to decide whether it believes the confession or not, [Emperor v. Dhani (1919) 20 Cr. L. J. 721=52 I. C. 881].

In the present case, the Sessions Judge found the confession to be voluntary and believed it to be true. He noted certain other evidence which supported the likelihood of its being true. The two Assessors also found the confession to be true.

We see no good ground for finding that the lower Court and the Assessors were not right in the decision they came to, as to the truth of the confession.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and sentence passed upon the appellant.