Wakilii

Rex v Kabutui (Criminal Appeal 153-1934.)

East African Court of Appeal · [1935] EACA 60 · 1935 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Criminal appeal from conviction for murder based on confession evidence
Decision
Accused released; no re-trial ordered

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

A confession obtained by a Magistrate who questioned a prisoner in custody without warning that he was not bound to answer and that his statements could be used against him cannot be regarded as voluntary and is inadmissible. This is especially so where the questioning concerns a previous inadmissible confession. A second confession connected with an inadmissible confession is itself inadmissible. The appeal was allowed and the accused ordered released as no other evidence supported the conviction.

Outcome

Accused released; no re-trial ordered

Facts

The appellant was arrested on a murder charge. While in police custody, he made a confession to a chief. The chief sent the appellant to the District Commissioner with a letter setting out the confession. The District Commissioner, without giving any warning, questioned the appellant about the letter's contents, and the appellant admitted they were true. At trial, the Judge excluded the confession to the chief as inadmissible but admitted the confession to the District Commissioner under section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, reasoning that section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code applied only to committal proceedings. The conviction rested entirely on this confession, with no other sufficient evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether a confession made by an accused person to a District Commissioner (Magistrate) in response to questions about a previous inadmissible confession, without any warning, was voluntary and admissible under section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
  2. Whether section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, prescribing warnings to be given by a Magistrate, applies only to committal proceedings or also to statements made at an earlier time to the same Magistrate.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Confession held inadmissible.
  • Accused directed to be released.
  • No order for re-trial as prosecution case could not succeed without the inadmissible confession.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Questioning by Magistrate Without Warning
Where a prisoner in custody is questioned by a Magistrate without warning that he is not bound to answer and that anything he says may be used in evidence against him, the prisoner cannot be considered a free agent and any resulting confession cannot be regarded as voluntary and is inadmissible.
Evidence — Confessions — Second Confession Following Inadmissible Confession
A second confession that is connected with a confession held to be inadmissible is itself inadmissible, particularly where the second confession is elicited by questions induced by information obtained from the first inadmissible confession.
Evidence — Confessions — Section 26 Indian Evidence Act — Magistrate's Duty
Before a confession by a prisoner can be received under section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Magistrate is obliged to satisfy himself that the confession is made voluntarily. Where a Magistrate calls a prisoner before him prior to preliminary inquiry and questions him without any intimation from the prisoner that he wished to say anything, such a confession cannot be said to be made voluntarily.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Confessions — Caution Requirement — Scope of Section 219
Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, prescribing the warning to be given to an accused by a Magistrate, does not limit the requirement for warnings only to committal proceedings; the principle that confessions must be voluntary applies at all stages when a Magistrate questions a prisoner.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Indian Evidence Act s.26
  • Criminal Procedure Code s.219

Cases cited (4)

  • R v Pettit (1850) 4 Cox 164
  • Regina v Rosa (1876) 13 Cox 209
  • Rex v Chuma arap Kimonja (15 KLR 102)
  • Ijema Bocha v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1921)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Rex v Kabutui (Criminal Appeal 153-1934.) [1935] EACA 60 (1 January 1935)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.