Submission that the fact that one of the accused arrested along with accused appellant had died in police lock up shows physical torture by police - such submission raised before Supreme court in appeal under Articles 136 ,in absence of any other material ,held not sufficient to doubt voluntariness of a confession.

Dealing with the contention that the confession was not voluntary attention of the court was deawn to the fact that one of the persons arrested along with appellant died in lock up and that would give sufficient indication as to the physical torture which the persons involbed in the case would have been subjected to .

Neither prosecution nor the defence could show how that person died when he was in police custody. The defence did not even bother to ask the investigation officer about the result of enquiry conducted by the Magistrate, under section 176 Crpc, regarding the death of the person ( if he had died while he was in police custody) the above mentioned provision mandates that the enquiry should have been conducted by Magistrate.

There is no allegation that the Judicial Magistrate had not adopted all the precautions enjoined by law before recording the confession. No other formality prescribed by law had been infringed by the Judicial Magistrate . In the absence of any such material it is too late for the day for the Supreme court ,particularly dealing with the apoeal under Article 136 of the Cinstitution ,to use the death of that person as a sufficient ground tobecclipes the voluntariness of the confession of LS which was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate.