Details |
A retracted confession is a statement made by an accused person before the
trial begins, by which he / she admits to have committed the offence, but
which he/she repudiate at the trial. A confession is said to be retracted
only where the accused admits that he/she made the confession and then
denies the truth to what is stated therein. There is no concrete
distinction between a retracted confession and unretracted confession, both
are equally admissible and may be taken into consideration against the
accused though it may be that less weight would be attached to a retracted
confession.
A retracted confession, if believed to be true, may form the basis of
conviction but as a rule of caution it is unsafe to base a conviction even
of the maker on a retracted confession alone without some independent
corroboration. The corroboration must be in material particulars so as to
satisfy the court that the confession, even though retracted, may be acted
upon.
It is well settled that a person can be convicted on retracted confession
alone, if it is found voluntary and true though as a matter of prudence
some corroboration may be asked for. ….. [Abdul Jalil & others vs State;
1985 BLD (HC) 137]
Retracted confession of an accused implicating a co-accused cannot be
relied upon without corroboration in material particulars by independent
evidence. ….. [Ali Asgar vs State, 1986 BLD (HC) 436(c)]
A retracted confession, if voluntarily made, can be acted upon along with
other evidence. There is no rule of law that requires its corroboration by
independent evidence in material particulars. But the use to be made of
such a confession is a matter of prudence rather than of law. …..
[Queen-Empress vs. Gharya (1894) 19 Bom 728]
Retracted confessions–
It has been held in the case of State vs. Minhun alias Gul Hassan reported
in PLD 1964 SC 813 that “Retracted confessions, whether judicial or
extra-judicial, could legally be taken into consideration against the maker
of those confessions himself, and if the confessions were found to be true
and voluntary, then there was no need at all to look for further
corroboration. As against the maker himself his confession, judicial or
extra-judicial, whether retracted or not retracted, can in law validly form
the sole basis of his conviction, if the Court is satisfied and believes
that it was true and voluntary and was not obtained by torture or coercion
or inducement.” ...Abdul Mannan(Md.) =VS= The State, (Criminal), 2021(1)
[10 LM (AD) 223] ....View Full Judgment
|