[Reader-list] Ensure confession is voluntary, says Supreme Court (?)

[Javed]

Why is supreme court suddenly worried now if people's confessions are
voluntary or not? Can anybody guess?

Even Aseemanad was asked if someone has forced him to make his
confession, and he confidently denied. But will we ever ask all the
past accused persons if their confessions were voluntary or under
duress? Forget about the magistrate, many confessions (especially of
Muslim terror suspects) were done for the media, and the verdict given
by the media. Of course, the folks killed in encounters were not even
given a chance to wink. Based on these new guidelines and the
confessions of Aseemanad, shouldn't we investigate the role played by
the "Special Cells" and ATSs in creating myths about Islamic terrorism
in India?

-----------------------

Make searching enquiry to ensure confession is voluntary, says Supreme Court

J. Venkatesan

In Staines case, witnesses specified the role of Dara Singh and
co-accused Mahendra Hembram

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, which on Friday laid down guidelines on
confessional statements made by the accused before a magistrate under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., held that while recording such statements
the provisions of this Section must be complied with not only in form
but also in essence.

Upholding the life imprisonment awarded to Dara Singh in the Staines
murder case, a Bench of Justices P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan said
it had become necessary to lay down the principles, as it was pointed
by counsel for the appellants that all confessions, though made before
a magistrate, obtained by force were inadmissible, as some of them
were in police custody and the confessions made after conspiracy
ceased to be operative.

Writing the judgment, Justice Sathasivam said: “Before proceeding to
record the confessional statement, a searching enquiry must be made
from the accused as to the custody from which he was produced and the
treatment he had been receiving in such custody in order to ensure
that there is no scope for doubt of any sort of extraneous influence
proceeding from a source interested in the prosecution; a magistrate
should ask the accused why he wants to make a statement which surely
shall go against his interest in the trial; the maker should be
granted sufficient time for reflection; he should be assured of
protection from any sort of … apprehended torture or pressure from the
police in case he declines to make a confessional statement; a
judicial confession not given voluntarily is unreliable, more so when
such a confession is retracted, the conviction cannot be based on such
retracted judicial confession; non-compliance with Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. goes to the root of the magistrate's jurisdiction to record
the confession and renders the confession unworthy of credence; during
the time of reflection, the accused should be completely out of police
influence. The judicial officer, entrusted with the duty of recording
confession, must apply his judicial mind to ascertain and satisfy his
conscience that the statement of the accused is not on account of any
extraneous influence on him; at the time of recording the statement of
the accused, no police or police official shall be present in the open
court; confession of a co-accused is a weak type of evidence; usually
the court requires some corroboration from the confessional statement
before convicting the accused person on such a statement.”

Slogans by miscreants

In this case, the Bench said: “It is relevant to point out that all
the eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution consistently stated that
during occurrence, the miscreants raised slogans in the name of Dara
Singh as ‘Dara Singh Zindabad.' The story of this slogan was also
mentioned in the first information report filed soon after the
occurrence. This slogan is in the name of Dara Singh, corroborates the
identification before the trial court for the first time. In addition
to the same, some of the witnesses identified Dara Singh by photo
identification.”

The Bench pointed out that all witnesses mentioned the blowing of
whistle by Dara Singh. This material, coupled with the other
corroborative evidence, was permissible, it said, rejecting the
appellant's contention.

The witnesses, it noted, had specified the role of Dara Singh and
co-accused Mahendra Hembram, “which we agree with and confirm the
same, and we also maintain the conviction and the sentence of life
imprisonment imposed on them.”

http://www.hindu.com/2011/01/22/stories/2011012263711600.htm