1963 (8) TMI 43 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a confession which is relevant can be proved by oral evidence in view of the provision of s. 164 of the Code? Held that - The High Court in the present case rightly rejected the oral evidence of Mr. Dixit. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of oral evidence of confessions purportedly recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under Sections 164 and 364 of the CrPC.
3. Applicability and interpretation of Section 533 of the CrPC.
4. Precedential value and application of the Judicial Committee's decision in Nazir Ahmed v. The King Emperor.
5. Relevance and admissibility of confessions under the Indian Evidence Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Oral Evidence of Confessions Purportedly Recorded Under Section 164 CrPC:
The primary issue in this case was the admissibility of oral evidence concerning confessions made to a magistrate and purportedly recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. The confessions in question were recorded by Mr. Dixit, a second-class magistrate, who was not specially empowered by the State Government to record such confessions under Section 164. The trial court admitted the oral evidence, but the High Court found it inadmissible, leading to the acquittal of the respondents.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements Under Sections 164 and 364 CrPC:
Section 164 CrPC outlines the procedure for recording confessions by certain magistrates, emphasizing the need for compliance with specific safeguards to ensure the voluntariness and accuracy of the confessions. Section 364 CrPC further prescribes the manner in which such statements should be recorded and authenticated. The judgment emphasized that the procedural safeguards in these sections are mandatory and must be strictly followed. The failure to comply with these procedures renders the confession inadmissible.

3. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 533 CrPC:
Section 533 CrPC allows for the admission of a confession if the court finds that the procedural requirements of Sections 164 and 364 were not complied with, provided that evidence is taken to show that the confession was duly made. However, the judgment clarified that this section emphasizes the necessity of following the prescribed procedure and does not permit bypassing the safeguards by admitting oral evidence of the confession. The section only allows for rectification of procedural lapses if the record does not show compliance but does not negate the mandatory nature of the procedures.

4. Precedential Value and Application of the Judicial Committee's Decision in Nazir Ahmed v. The King Emperor:
The judgment heavily relied on the precedent set by the Judicial Committee in Nazir Ahmed v. The King Emperor, which held that oral evidence of a confession recorded by a magistrate without following the prescribed procedure is inadmissible. The principle established in Nazir Ahmed's case is that when a statute prescribes a specific method for exercising a power, that method must be followed exclusively. This principle was applied to hold that a magistrate cannot give oral evidence of a confession purportedly recorded under Section 164 if the procedural requirements were not met.

5. Relevance and Admissibility of Confessions Under the Indian Evidence Act:
The judgment also addressed the relevance and admissibility of confessions under the Indian Evidence Act. It was argued that a confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC should be admissible as substantive evidence under Sections 74 and 80 of the Evidence Act. However, the court held that the safeguards in Section 164 are intended to protect the accused and ensure the reliability of the confession. Allowing oral evidence of a confession without following these safeguards would undermine the statutory protections and render the provisions of Section 164 nugatory.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the oral evidence of the confessions recorded by Mr. Dixit, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the procedural safeguards in Sections 164 and 364 CrPC. The appeal was dismissed, reaffirming the principles established in Nazir Ahmed's case and ensuring the protection of the accused's rights through strict adherence to statutory procedures. The judgment underscores the importance of following prescribed legal procedures to maintain the integrity and reliability of confessions used as evidence in criminal trials.