Issues Involved: 1. Admissibility of the confession made to a Magistrate and not recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 2. The procedure for recording confessions and statements under Sections 164 and 364 of the CrPC. 3. The implications of non-compliance with the prescribed procedures under Sections 164 and 364. 4. The role and limitations of Section 533 in curing procedural defects. 5. The principle of statutory interpretation regarding the prescribed methods for exercising judicial powers.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility of the Confession: The appellant was convicted mainly on the strength of a confession made to a Magistrate, which was not recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. The sole question for decision was whether such evidence was admissible. The judgment emphasized that if the evidence of the confession was inadmissible, the conviction could not be supported.
2. Procedure for Recording Confessions and Statements: The relevant sections of the CrPC, particularly Sections 157, 159, 162, 164, 364, and 533, were examined. Section 164 allows certain Magistrates to record statements or confessions during an investigation. The procedure requires the Magistrate to explain to the person making the confession that it is not obligatory and that it may be used as evidence against him. The confession must be recorded and signed in the manner provided in Section 364.
3. Implications of Non-Compliance: The Magistrate, Mr. Vasisht, did not follow the procedure prescribed by Sections 164 and 364. He made rough notes and later destroyed them after dictating a memorandum. The High Court admitted the confession, stating that such evidence had long been held admissible. However, the Privy Council disagreed, emphasizing that the Magistrate must follow the prescribed procedure, and any deviation renders the confession inadmissible.
4. Role and Limitations of Section 533: Section 533 allows a court to admit a confession or statement even if procedural defects exist, provided the error has not injured the accused's defense. However, in this case, the Magistrate neither acted nor purported to act under Sections 164 or 364, and nothing was tendered in evidence as recorded under these sections. Therefore, the scope of Section 533 was not applicable.
5. Principle of Statutory Interpretation: The judgment highlighted the principle that when a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, it must be done in that way or not at all. Sections 164 and 364 must be construed together, and the procedure laid down must be strictly followed. The judgment emphasized that the safeguards in these sections are crucial and cannot be bypassed.
Conclusion: The Privy Council concluded that the confession made to the Magistrate was inadmissible as it was not recorded following the prescribed procedure under Sections 164 and 364 of the CrPC. The evidence of Mr. Vasisht should have been rejected by the Court. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction of the appellant was set aside.
9911796707
