Judgment AMIR DAS, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against the order, dated 3-4-1993, passed by Sri S. M. Haque, IVth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in S. T. No. 81/93, by which he has convicted the petitioner under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for life. 2. Following facts are relevant to be referred for the purpose of disposal of this application. Mainu Kumari, the daughter of the petitioner gave her fardbeyan on 23rd July, 1992, at 11 Hrs. at the P. O. House that her father, the petitioner had killed his four years old son Mana Oraon, while he was sleeping in the house. By way of narration, she has stated that her father alongwith his children, including the informant and the deceased was sleeping in his house. Suddenly, the informant heard the cries of his brother and no sooner she went there she found her father catching hold the neck of Mana Oraon. When the informant asked his father as to what he was doing, suddenly her father threw his son, the deceased, Mana Oraon outside the courtyard and threatened her to go on bed and. sleep. The dead body of Mana Oraon was found in the house and his throat was found cut. She also found a Paithi, (a weapon used to cut vegetables). Sometime after the occurrence, the villagers assembled and caught the petitioner who was making preparation for fleeing away. She has further stated that on probe her father confessed his guilt by admitting that he had killed his son. Having received the fardbeyan, the police registered the instant case and took up investigation. In course of investigation, the petitioner was examined under Section 164, Cr. P. C. In due course after completion of the investigation, final form has been submitted. 3. After commitment notification, the trial commenced on 31-3-1998, on which date the prosecution opened its case and argued the facts constituting the offence. The learned Trial Judge formulated the charge against the petitioner under Section 302, I. P. C. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, he pleaded guilty and declined to be tried. Since the petitioner himself pleaded guilty, his statement was recorded by the trial Court on 3-4-1993. The learned Trial Judge formulated the charge against the petitioner under Section 302, I. P. C. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, he pleaded guilty and declined to be tried. Since the petitioner himself pleaded guilty, his statement was recorded by the trial Court on 3-4-1993. In the opinion of the learned Trial Judge, the statement of the accused-petitioner is the admission of his guilt and that is why, he has convicted the petitioner under Section 229, Cr. P. C. Being aggrieved with the said order of conviction on the plea of guilty, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of this revision. 4. Mr. Poddar, arguing the case on behalf of the petitioner contended that normally the Court of Sessions, does not act upon the con fessional. statement of the accused, rather he records the evidence in. find out the guilt of the accused. He has, further, submitted that the statement of the petitioner was not recorded as Verbatim, rather it was in Hindi, and as such no much more importance can be given to the same, Mr. Poddar further contended that before recording the statement the petitioner was never warned about the consequences of making such statement and as such no safeguard was given to him before recording such admission. Mr. Poddar lastly drew the attention of the Court towards the statement of the petitioner under Section 164, Cr. P. C. and on that preface, he has submitted that the petitioner was not of sound mind rather he was under the influence of some evil spirit. 5. Mr. S. N. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the correctness of the order of conviction, but conceded to the fact that the Court has not given proper device to assure that the confession was made voluntarily. Mr. Sinha suggested that it is a fit case for remand. 6. The rule of law does not bar the conviction of an accused on confession. However, rule of prudence requires that the confession must be voluntary, it must be made after taking proper device and confession must be with full understanding of the consequences. 7. In almost all the cases, namely, Session triable, warrant triable and summon triable, there is provision of conviction of the accused on the plea of guilty. However, rule of prudence requires that the confession must be voluntary, it must be made after taking proper device and confession must be with full understanding of the consequences. 7. In almost all the cases, namely, Session triable, warrant triable and summon triable, there is provision of conviction of the accused on the plea of guilty. It is relevant to mention here that in Session triable cases conviction on plea of guilty is provided under Section 229 of the Cr.P. C, conviction on plea of guilty under warrant cases is provided under Section 241, Cr. P. C. and conviction on pleading guilty in summons cases is provided under Section 255, Cr. P. C. But in all the relevant provisions, the words "May in his discretion" have been used by the Legislature. In other words, if an accused pleads guilty the Judge or the Magistrate, as the case may be, shall record his plea of guilty and while acting on it, he may or may not convict him. Conviction on the plea of guilty is a discretion of the trial Court, for which there is no scope of presumptive or argumentative views. 8. In the instant case, the learned Trial Judge has not applied his mind even to the facts of the case what to take the elementary requirement of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the record, there is no material or document save and except the confessional statement and the impugned order which narrates the prosecution case. In other words there is no legal evidence at all to be referred in the order or judgment impugned. The very statement made by the accused under Section 164, Cr. P. C. has also not been brought on record. The statement of the accused is very relevant to read his mind under which it was working at the time of commission of crime. Thus, to give a referential value for the purpose of reading the mind of the accused petitioner, I think it better to refer the statement: "In the night I was sleeping alongwith my children. In the midnight some one asked me in human voice to out my child, to which I replied why should I kill my own child, when I gave birth and brought him up. In the midnight some one asked me in human voice to out my child, to which I replied why should I kill my own child, when I gave birth and brought him up. Again that voice repeated to cut his child and at that time my mind was not properly working and I killed by son with the help of Baithi (which is used for cutting vegetables). My mind was not working at the time of cutting nor I had recognised that the child to whom I was cutting was my son. In the morning, I learnt that he was my son to whom I had cut. If I would have known that he was my son, I would not have killed him. I am giving this statement voluntarily." This statement was made on 30-7-1992. 9 From what has been referred above, it would be manifest that he was acting under the influence of devils advice or the voice coming from spirit. In other words, the statements recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. of the accused-petitioner reveals that he was not a man having rational understanding, while he was committing the crime ; or he was not committing the crime with full understanding that he was killing his son. Such state of mind assumes more importance when the accused-petitioner was convicted merely on pleading guilty. Surprisingly, such fantastic circumstances have escaped the mind of the learned Trial Judge. On this background now I will take up the facts which have been stated by the accused-petitioner. 10. In course of his examination, after framing of charge, the trial Judge has put a very relevant question as to whether he was examined by any doctor and the petitioner gave answer in affirmative. The medical examination of the petitioner makes a room for suspicion that he was mentally not in order and for that he had to go under medical examination. 11. Learned Trial Judge could not take pains to bring the medical report on the record. Not only this, the trial Judge is completely silent on the result of medical examination. In my view, the petitioner accused must have been suffering from somesort of mental disorder while the investigation was going on. 12. So far the question of mode of recording the confessional statement is concerned, I find force in the statement of Mr. Not only this, the trial Judge is completely silent on the result of medical examination. In my view, the petitioner accused must have been suffering from somesort of mental disorder while the investigation was going on. 12. So far the question of mode of recording the confessional statement is concerned, I find force in the statement of Mr. Poddar that some safeguards are required to be given before recording such statement. It is well-settled that the confessional statement to be acted upon for conviction must be made voluntarily. Not only this the most important requirement is that the statement must be made with full understanding of the consequences. The learned Trial Judge has not put any question to the petitioner as to why he wants to plead guilty and that he would be convicted even for death sentence, if he makes such confessional statement. These two aspects are lacking to the instant case. This statement of the accused admitting his guilt can not be recognised to have been made with full understanding of its consequences and that any proper device was made before recording it. 13. Before closing this paragraph, it may be mentioned here that it is not a case for conviction of the accused-petitioner on the so-called confessional statement. The learned Trial Judge should have gone through the entire facts of the case atleast to acquaint himself. It is not a case for coming to the conclusion only on the basis of confessional statement, that it was a case in which the evidence should have been ordered to be recorded. It is a case in which the learned Trial Judge should have applied his judicial discretion instead of convicting the accused on plea of guilty which has not been recorded properly. 14. In view of the above reasons, I come to the last conclusion that the conviction of the accused-petitioner cannot be sustained as it requires evidence to prove the charges levelled against him. I find force in this revision application, which must be allowed. 15. In the result, the application is allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside, and the case is remanded back to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranohi for afresh trial. Considering the detention of the petitioner in custody, the Judicial Commissioner is also directed to get the trial concluded expeditiously. 15. In the result, the application is allowed, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is set aside, and the case is remanded back to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranohi for afresh trial. Considering the detention of the petitioner in custody, the Judicial Commissioner is also directed to get the trial concluded expeditiously. However, it is made clear that at it shall not be construed that this Court has expressed its views either on the merit of the case or on the statement made by the petitioner, under Section 164, Cr. P. C.