# TULSI SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1996] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 340
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1996-08-07
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 1986
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/tulsi-singh-v-state-of-punjab-14375
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A
TULSI SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
AUGUST 7, 1996
B
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, .LI.]
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
S.30~Murde,-Tria/ by Special Cowt-Trial Cowt rxordi11g co11vicC lion on the basis of co11fessio11 of accused and medical evide11ce-Held,
confession not having been recorded in consonance lVith tile requirenzents of
s.164(2) Cr. P. C,Special Cowt was 11ot justified i11 ente1tai11i11g the confession
as a vo/unta1y 01u .. ~onviction and sentence recorded against accused set
aside.
D
Code of C!iminal Procedure, 1973 :
E
S.164(2) and (4}-Confessio1t-Convictio11 by trial Cowt based on-No
indication in the confession recorded by Judicial Magistrate that it was
recorded by him after being satisfied that the accused was making a voluntary
statement and he gave the accused tire requisite caution-Held these are basic
pre-requisites for recording a confession and a nzere endorse111ent in accordance with sub-section (4) after recording it would not fulfil requirements of
sub-section (2)-Since none of tire two requirements of s.164(2) has been
complied with, tJial cowt was not at all justified in entc1taini11g tire confession
as a voluntary one and recording conviction in absence of any other illF
crinzinating evidence against the accused.

## Text

A
TULSI SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
AUGUST 7, 1996
B
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, .LI.]
Indian Penal Code, 1860:
S.30~Murde,-Tria/ by Special Cowt-Trial Cowt rxordi11g co11vicC lion on the basis of co11fessio11 of accused and medical evide11ce-Held,
confession not having been recorded in consonance lVith tile requirenzents of
s.164(2) Cr. P. C,Special Cowt was 11ot justified i11 ente1tai11i11g the confession
as a vo/unta1y 01u .. ~onviction and sentence recorded against accused set
aside.
D
Code of C!iminal Procedure, 1973 :
E
S.164(2) and (4}-Confessio1t-Convictio11 by trial Cowt based on-No
indication in the confession recorded by Judicial Magistrate that it was
recorded by him after being satisfied that the accused was making a voluntary
statement and he gave the accused tire requisite caution-Held these are basic
pre-requisites for recording a confession and a nzere endorse111ent in accordance with sub-section (4) after recording it would not fulfil requirements of
sub-section (2)-Since none of tire two requirements of s.164(2) has been
complied with, tJial cowt was not at all justified in entc1taini11g tire confession
as a voluntary one and recording conviction in absence of any other illF
crinzinating evidence against the accused.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
589 of 1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.1.85 of the Special Court at
G Ferozepur in Case No. 64/84 T.No. 18/85 and F.l.R. No. 151 of 1984.
O.P. Khullar and R.C. Kohli for the Appellant.
H.M. Singh for R.S. Suri for the Respondent.
H
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
340
•
TULSISINGHv. STATE
341
Tulsi Singh, the appellant before us, was arraigned before the Special A
Court, Ferozepur for the murder of his wife Chhinder Kaur. The trial
ended in an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under Section 302 !PC and aggrieved thereby he has filed the instant
appeal.
In absence of any eye witness to the murder, the prosecution rested
its case upon the confession made by the appellant before a Judicial
Magistrate and the evidence of the doctor who held post mortem examination upon the deceased and opined that her death was homicidal.
From the impugned judgment we find that the appellant did not
dispute the fact that his wife met with an homicidal death. He, however,
contained that he was not responsible for the murder, nor did he make any
voluntary confession in respect thereof as alleged by the prosecution. The
Special Court, however, found the confession made by the appellant to be
voluntary and true and relying solely thereupon convicted the appeliapt.
The only point that has been urged on behalf of the appellant in
support of this appeal is that the Special Court was not justified in
entertaining the confession as evidence - much less relying upon the same
- as it was not recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 164
Cr.P.C. In elaborating this contention is has been submitted that before
recording the confession Shri 0.P. Garg (PW 1), the learned Magistrate,
did not explain to the appellant that he was not hound to make confession
and that if he did so it might be used against him nor did he put any
question to him to satisfy himself that the confession was being voluntarily
made, as required under sub-section (2) of Section 164 Cr.P.C.
To ascertain whether the above contention is borne by the record or
not we have carefully looked into the evidence of the Magistrate as also
the confession (Ext. P/6). On perusal thereof, we find that after his arrest
B
c
D
E
F
the appellant was produced before the Magistrate on June 16, 1984 and
sent to police custody for a week on the prayer of the Investigating Officer. G
He was thereafter produced before the Magistrate on June 22, 1984 when
he volunteered to make a confession. The Magistrate remanded him to
judicial custody with a direction that he be produced on the following date,
that is, on June 23, 1984. It appears that immediately after he was produced
on that day the learned Magistrate recorded his confession. Though the
learned Magistrate testified that before recording the confession he satis- H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
fied himself that the accused (appellant) was making a voluntary statement
and that after giving due caution he recorded it, the confession does not
anywhere indicate as to whether before recording the same he gave him
the requisite caution and put questions to satisfy himself that it was being
made voluntarily. These are the basic pre-requisites for recording a conB fession under sub-section (2) of Section 164 Cr.P.C. and a mere endorsement in accordance with sub-section ( 4) after recording it would not fulfil
the requirements of the former sub-section. Since none of the two requirements of Section 164 (2) Cr.P.C. has been complied with we are left with
no other alternative to hold that the Special Court was not at all justified
in entertaining the confession a<; a voluntary one. Once the confession is
C left out of consideration - as it has got to be -the impugned conviction
cannot be sustained in ahsence of any other incriminating evidence against
the appellant.
In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the conVIctton and
sentence recorded against the appellant. The appellant, who is on bail, is
D discharged from his bail bonds.
R.P.
Appeal allowed.
•