Unsigned confession cannot be sole basis for conviction: Gauhati High Court frees man after 21 years in jail

The Gauhati High Court recently ruled that an accused cannot be convicted for a crime solely based on an unsigned confessional statement, without any other evidence to back up the allegations [Shri Kedukhoyi v. State of Nagaland]..The ruling was passed in a rape and murder case where the only evidence available against the accused when the matter reached the High Court was a photocopy of a confession statement.Notably, this confession statement was not signed by the accused (appellant) or the magistrate who was said to have recorded it. A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Budi Habung noted that if the confession statement has not been signed or proved by the magistrate who recorded it, the same cannot be treated as the true confessional statement by the accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)."As per 164 (4), the confessional statement of the accused person shall be signed by the person making the confession, but in the present case, the accused has not signed the said confessional statement. Non-compliance with provision of section 164 Cr.P.C has caused injury to the accused in his defence on merit and the same cannot be cured at the later stage. In view of the above, we are not in a position to accept the said document to be a true confessional statement of the accused," the Court observed, while ordering the release of the accused man after 21 years of imprisonment. .The appellant had been convicted by a trial court for the murder and rape of a woman in 2003. For several years, he did not challenge the trial court verdict by filing an appeal. However, he sent a representation to the State government seeking premature release from prison. After the State rejected his request, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court. When the matter reached the High Court, the case records that were before the trial court could not be traced. The High Court, therefore, asked the trial court to reconstruct the records, as far as it could. The trial court proceeded to send three documents to the High Court, namely the first information report (FIR), a confession statement, and the trial court's judgment. .The confession statement presented was a photostat copy. Pertinently, this document did not contain the signature of the magistrate stated to have recorded it.The appellant also pointed out that the contents of the confessional statement were required to be proved by the magistrate in order to use it as evidence against the accused. However, in this case, the magistrate was not examined and the confessional statement was never proved before the trial court, the High Court was told. The confession statement did not even contain the signature of the magistrate or the accused. This violated the requirement of Section 164, CrPC, the appellant contended. .The High Court found merit in these arguments. It held that the conviction of the accused could not have been possible solely based on an unsigned confessional statement.The Court added that although the original records of the case were not fully traced, the available records indicated that right from the beginning, the investigation of the case was not properly done."There is no record of the confessional statement except the unsigned Xerox copy of the purported confessional statement containing the signature of the Police Court, Phek. That probably was the reason, why the Magistrate has not been summoned to prove the said document. The document which has not been signed or proved by the Magistrate, who is purported to have recorded the said confessional statement cannot be treated as the true confessional statement of the accused under the provisions of section 164 of CrPC," the Court added..The Court also noted that even though the appellant had initially pleaded guilty, the matter later proceeded to trial. Once the case proceeds to trial, the prosecution had a duty to ensure that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held. "In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the Court concluded. .It, therefore, set aside the trial court verdict and ordered the appellant's release from prison. .Advocate Sentiyanger appeared for the appellant.Public Prosecutor K Angami appeared for the State of Nagaland..[Read Judgment]