Retraction of Statement :
If a person alleges that his statement is obtained by coercion or force or inducement, he can retract his statement, but the statement should be retracted as early as possible. Retracted statement does not become a nullity.
Apex Court in KTMS Mohammed v. UOI AIR 1992 SC 1831 = (1992) 3 SCC 178 = 197 ITR 196 = 1992 AIR SCW 2062 = 65 Taxman 130, have held that merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot be recorded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained. It is for the maker of statement who alleges inducement, threat, promises etc. to establish his allegations of inducement, threat etc. against the officer who recorded the statement. However, even if he fails to establish his allegations of inducement, threat etc., the authority should at least subjectively apply its mind to the retraction to hold that the inculpatory statement was not extorted. . . . . . . . He should consider the retraction and record his opinion before accepting the inculpatory statement. . . . . . . . The retraction should be rejected in writing.
A person accused of omission of offense is not expected to prove to the hilt that confession has been obtained from him by inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority. Initial burden to prove that confession was voluntary is on department. However, mere retraction of confessions is not sufficient to make the statement irrelevant. Court has to consider implications of both confession and retraction. If confession is retracted, it must be corroborated by other independent and cogent evidences – Vinod Solanki v. UOI (2009) 92 SCL 157 = 233 ELT 157 = 13 STR 337 (SC).
In Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. UOI 1997 AIR SCW 2507 = AIR 1997 SC 2560 = 17 RLT 331 = 89 ELT 646 (SC), a confession made before customs officer was held binding even if retracted later. It was also held that in case of confessional statement, non-tendering of witnesses for cross-examination is not violation of principles of natural justice – followed in Chandra Impex v. CC (2008) 224 ELT 583 (CESTAT). Conviction can be based on confession itself, even if retracted later. However, Court would require some corroboration in the confessional statement – Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab – AIR 1957 SC 637 = 1957 SCR 953 – quoted with approval in Mohabir Biswas v. State of WB – (1995) 2 SCC 25 (3 member bench) * State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath 2000 AIR SCW 1625 = (2000) 6 SCC 269 = AIR 2000 SC 1691.
If a statement is retracted, the same should be corroborated on material particulars – Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam (2004) 7 SCC 779 = 2004 AIR SCW 4930 * State of Maharashtra v. Hasmukh Hargovind Shah – 1993 Cr LJ 1953 (Bom HC) * Elex Knitting v. CCE 2003 (158) ELT 499 (CESTAT) * Pascoal Das v. CC 2003 (157) ELT 132 (Bom HC) * Opel Alloys v. CCE 2005 (182) ELT 64 (CESTAT) * Hunsoor Plywood Works v. CCE 2006 (201) ELT 239 (CESTAT).
Supreme Court in Haroon Haji Abdulla v. State of Maharashtra – AIR 1968 SC 832 = (1968) 2 SCR 641 = 110 ELT 309, has held that statement must be voluntary and if statement appears to have been obtained by coercion, inducement or threat, it must be rejected. However, merely because a statement is retracted, it cannot be recorded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained. Authority should apply its mind to retraction and record its opinion before it is accepted (as voluntary). In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan – AIR 1963 SC 1094 (SC 4 member bench) also, it has been held that a retracted confession may form the legal basis of conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made. However, though not a rule of law, as a rule of prudence, conviction on such retracted confession should not be made without corroboration in material particulars.