A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

In Sarwan Singh v. The State of Punjab [1957 SCR 953], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decisively addressed the procedural and evidentiary obligations surrounding the recording of confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the evidentiary reliability of approvers in a murder trial. The appellants, Sarwan Singh and Harbans Singh, were convicted primarily on the confessional statement of Sarwan Singh and the testimony of the approver, Banta Singh. The Apex Court held that the procedural irregularities in recording the confession vitiated its voluntariness, and the inconsistencies in the approver’s testimony rendered it unreliable. It emphasized that an approver’s testimony must meet a dual test — it must be inherently trustworthy and independently corroborated. Further, it established that a confession, to be admissible, must not only be voluntary but also demonstrably truthful. On these legal grounds, the Court acquitted both accused, setting aside the High Court’s affirmation of their death sentences.

Keywords: Voluntary Confession, Section 164 CrPC, Approver’s Testimony, Murder Trial, Supreme Court of India, Corroboration of Evidence.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Sarwan Singh v. The State of Punjab
ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeals Nos. 22 and 23 of 1957
iii) Judgement Date: April 10, 1957
iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
v) Quorum: B. P. Sinha, Ayyangar, and Gajendragadkar, JJ.
vi) Author: Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar
vii) Citation: Sarwan Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1957] SCR 953
viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
x) Related Law Subjects: Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence Law, Constitutional Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The prosecution in this case relied primarily on a confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the testimony of an approver who had turned state witness after receiving a pardon. This case arose from a gruesome and premeditated murder of Gurdev Singh by a conspiracy allegedly involving his own brother, Harbans Singh, Sarwan Singh, and another accused, Gurdial Singh. While the trial court sentenced all accused to death, the High Court acquitted Gurdial Singh and confirmed the death penalties of the other two. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the issue revolved around the validity of the confession and the evidentiary credibility of the approver.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Gurdev Singh, the victim, was murdered on 23rd November 1955, in Village Sohian, Punjab. Harbans Singh, the brother of the deceased, allegedly planned the murder with his associates, including Sarwan Singh and Gurdial Singh. Banta Singh, who later turned approver, joined the plot after consuming liquor with the accused days before the murder. The attack took place during sunset when Gurdev Singh was ambushed near a canal, as per the plan allegedly hatched by Harbans Singh. Sarwan Singh and others used kirpans, toki, and lathis to inflict multiple fatal injuries—69 incised wounds and two contusions—on Gurdev Singh. Harbans Singh subsequently raised a false alarm, blaming others from another village. However, the police investigation led to the arrest of the real suspects and recovery of weapons and blood-stained clothes based on their disclosures. Sarwan Singh later made a confession under Section 164 CrPC, and Banta Singh was granted a pardon and made approver.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the confession made by Sarwan Singh was voluntary and true under Section 164 CrPC?
ii) Whether the testimony of Banta Singh, the approver, was reliable and corroborated?
iii) Whether the circumstantial and documentary evidence was sufficient to convict the appellants under Section 302 IPC?

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioners / Appellants submitted that:

They argued that the confession made by Sarwan Singh was not voluntary as he was not given sufficient time or judicial custody prior to making the statement, contrary to the guidelines under Section 164 CrPC and judicial precedents like Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 [1]. Moreover, they contended that the approver’s testimony failed the credibility test due to stark inconsistencies between his initial and later statements. His first statement did not implicate Harbans Singh, and this changed only after he was granted pardon, creating a strong suspicion of inducement. They also attacked the High Court’s judgment for failing to first assess the reliability of the approver independently before considering corroboration. Lastly, they emphasized that the physical evidence, including bloodstained clothes and weapon recoveries, were insufficiently linked to the crime without the confessional or approver’s testimony.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The prosecution contended that the confession was made before a magistrate who asked all requisite questions, indicating voluntariness. They relied on the testimony of the magistrate who recorded the confession and the compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 164 CrPC. They argued that even if the confession was later retracted, the detailed statement, including the names, weapons used, and motive, provided substantive corroboration to the approver’s account. Additionally, the recovery of blood-stained clothes and weapons, and the suspicious conduct of Harbans Singh post-incident, collectively pointed to their guilt. Citing Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159, they submitted that corroboration of a confession and an approver’s testimony, even through circumstantial evidence, suffices for conviction [2].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 164 CrPC, 1898 – Deals with the recording of confessions by magistrates. It mandates that the confession must be recorded voluntarily and with adequate safeguards.

ii) Section 302 IPC, 1860 – Provides punishment for murder, which includes death penalty or life imprisonment.

iii) Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – A confession is inadmissible if obtained by inducement, threat, or promise.

iv) Article 136 of the Constitution – Empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal against any judgment.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Apex Court underscored the dual test applicable to an approver’s testimony: reliability and corroboration. It ruled that the High Court erred by assuming reliability without evaluating the inherent truthfulness of the testimony. The initial statement of the approver contradicted his later version implicating Harbans Singh, which raised serious doubts about his motives and credibility. The confession made by Sarwan Singh also failed procedural muster under Section 164 CrPC due to inadequate time given to the accused, absence of proper custodial separation from police influence, and the presence of physical injuries unexplained during the judicial proceedings. Hence, both confession and approver’s testimony were deemed unfit for conviction.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i) The Court observed that even if a confession is found to be voluntary, it must still be tested for truth. Moreover, it suggested that High Court Circulars guiding magistrates on the recording of confessions need revision to ensure better compliance with constitutional safeguards and procedural integrity [3].

c. GUIDELINES 

• A magistrate must give an accused adequate time — preferably 24 hours — in judicial custody before recording a confession under Section 164 CrPC.

• The magistrate must ensure the complete mental detachment of the accused from police influence.

• Confessions must not be accepted mechanically; careful inquiry into voluntariness and truthfulness is required.

• An approver’s testimony must first be proven reliable before testing corroboration.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment serves as a critical precedent in reinforcing procedural integrity in criminal justice. The Supreme Court has drawn a clear line regarding the admissibility of confessions and approver evidence. The insistence on adequate judicial custody and separation from police influence before confession strengthens the protection against coercion. Further, it reiterates the principle that courts cannot act on tainted or suspicious testimony, no matter how seemingly corroborated. In acquitting both Sarwan Singh and Harbans Singh, the Court preserved the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21, and reiterated the burden on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The decision also implicitly warned against the casual use of capital punishment where evidence lacks unimpeachable credibility.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253
[2] Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 159
[3] Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403 – Later followed similar guidelines

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 – Section 164

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24

• Constitution of India – Article 136, Article 21