New Register for Workshop on How to start for NABARD 2025 (Stepwise Plan) - Apr 26, 7 PM

    Question

    In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court

    hold that a confession must either admit in terms of the offence, or at any rate, substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.
    A Mithu v. State of Punjab Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B Mubarak Ali v. State Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C Palwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Vihayan v. State of Kerala Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    Mithu v. State of Punjab,As per Section 303, if a person undergoing life imprisonment committed murder, they would mandatorily be sentenced to death. The SC held that the provision drew an arbitrary distinction between persons committing murder and persons undergoing life imprisonment who committed murder Mubarak Ali v. State,Evidently, at a later stage, the accused was held by the Indian authorities in England and was extradited to Bombay. In Bombay, he was tried and found guilty of cheating under Section 420 of the Penal Code. Palwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab Palvinder Kaur,was tried for offences under sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, in connection with the murder of her husband, Jaspal Singh.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that, for any admission to be a confession, the person in such statement must either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. The court further stated that a mixed up statement which contains some confessional statement will still lead to the acquittal of the accused, and hence isn’t a confession.

    Practice Next