Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Meghalaya High Court, in a significant ruling, has held that "there is no hard and fast rule that accused must be given 24 hours of time” before recording of the confession by the Magistrate and and non-compliance with this practice does not automatically invalidate the confession.

On the contention that the accused were not given sufficient time and the confession was recorded in less than 24 hours, the court clarified that the absence of a 24-hour wait doesn't automatically invalidate confessions.

However, it underscored the importance of the magistrate's responsibility to ensure voluntariness and adhering to proper legal procedures. Agreeing with the judgment of Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan, as cited by the AAG, it was observed that, “it is a duty of the Magistrate to ensure that that accused persons are freed from the possibility of influence by the Police by giving adequate time to them and there is no necessity for the Magistrate to wait for 24 hours and thereafter obtain 164 Cr.P.C. statements from the accused.”

The accused (appellants) were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), each sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.15,000, payable to the family members of the deceased victim.

The trial court determined that the convicts were not entitled to the benefits of Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which relates to the period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment. As a result, they were mandated to serve the complete life sentence in prison. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the appellants filed criminal appeals against the order dated July 28, 2022​​.

The prosecution's case originates from a complaint made by one Sharbih Rakait on July 11, 2006, alleging that her son, Salong Rakait, was murdered by the appellants alongside Mut Rakait and Dilip Chyrmang. Following this complaint, Jowai Police Station registered a case under Sections 302/34 of IPC.

The investigation led to the arrest of the accused persons. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed with the Court of the ADC, Jowai, on August 18, 2006, and the case was later transferred to the District and Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, for trial.

However, during the trial, two of the five initially charged individuals, Dilip Chyrmang and Mut Rakait, passed away, leading to the abatement of the case against them. The remaining accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where they all denied the allegations against them. The Trial Court, upon reviewing the prosecution's evidence, found the three accused guilty as charged.

The counsel, representing the accused, however, contended that the confessions were recorded within two hours of the arrest, falling significantly short of the commonly practiced 24-hour waiting period. This, they argued, deprived the accused of adequate time to reflect and consult legal counsel, potentially compromising the voluntariness of their statements. It was further pointed out that no forensic examination was conducted, and that the seizure witness was a police officer, challenging the impartiality of this testimony. 

Additionally, he strongly relied on the case of Shivappa vs. State of Karnataka, [(1995) 2 SCC 76], wherein the Supreme Court underlined the responsibility of a Magistrate in recording confessions from accused individuals coming from police or jail custody. It emphasised “an inquiry by the Magistrate to ascertain the voluntary nature of the confession”. It was argued that the accused were not adequately informed of the consequences of their confessions, particularly in a language they understood which is the mandate of Section 164 of CrPC..

It was further contended that the accused Mulo Rakait confessed to the murder out of revenge, properly informed that the inquiry was by a Magistrate, not police. Rakait acknowledged understanding the legal consequences and denied police torture. He admitted to killing the deceased with others using weapons, with the confession made in local “Pnar” language. Other accused didn’t deny the crime, with statements recorded in English. The state argued that confessions, if supported by evidence, are sufficient for conviction.

A bench comprising the Chief Justice S.Vaidyanathan and Justice W.Diengdoh, after taking into account the contentions of both the parties, noted that “there was no direct eyewitness to the occurrence, purely on account of which, but at the same time, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside”. However, the court upholding the validity of the confession said, “We are fully convinced with the recording of 164 statements by the Magistrate, as there was no deviation from the conditions under Section 164 Cr.P.C.”

The court further found that the actions of the appellants, driven by sudden provocation, did not constitute murder but fell under Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC, amounting to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

Therefore, the court modified the original conviction, sentencing the appellants under Section 304 (I) IPC to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, highlighting the importance of provocation in determining the nature of the offence.

 

Cause Title : Mulo Rakait and Others v State of Meghalaya [Crl. A. No. 6-8/2023]