9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Failure to supply the defense with copies of statements made by prosecution witnesses during the preliminary police investigation, allegedly breaching Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Alleged wrongful admission and use of confessions made by appellants while in police custody, involving the construction of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Breach of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to supply them with copies of statements made by important prosecution witnesses during the preliminary police investigation, which they claimed was a breach of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion of Section 162 states that any statement made to a police officer during an investigation shall not be used for any purpose at any inquiry or trial, except for contradicting the witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. The facts revealed that the police sub-inspector recorded statements of five prosecution witnesses in his notebook, which were not made available to the accused at the proper time. The accused were only provided with statements made to the Circle Inspector. During the trial, the sub-inspector's notebook was produced late, and discrepancies between the statements were noted, though not deemed vital. The Court acknowledged a breach of the proviso to Section 162 but concluded that no prejudice was occasioned to the accused as the statements were eventually made available, and no significant inconsistencies were found. The Court held that the trial was conducted substantially in the manner prescribed by the Code, and the irregularity could be cured under Section 537, as it did not occasion any failure of justice. Issue 2: Wrongful Admission of Confessions and Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act The appellants contended that confessions made by them while in police custody were wrongfully admitted under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 27 provides an exception to the prohibition on confessions made to police officers or while in police custody, allowing the admissibility of information that leads to the discovery of a fact. The Court clarified that Section 27 should not nullify the prohibitions in Sections 25 and 26. The admissible information under Section 27 must relate distinctly to the fact discovered, such as the location of a concealed object, and not to past usage or history of the object. The Court found that the confessions in question included inadmissible statements about the use of the objects in the commission of the crime. The Court cited precedents supporting this interpretation, rejecting the broader view taken by the Madras High Court in Athappa Goundan's case, which allowed the inclusion of information connecting the object with the offence. Conclusion and Remand The Court concluded that evidence had been improperly admitted and directed the High Court of Madras to reconsider the case. The High Court was instructed to determine whether, after excluding the inadmissible confessional statements, there was sufficient admissible evidence to justify the convictions. If sufficient evidence existed, the convictions would be upheld; otherwise, the High Court would take appropriate action, either discharging the accused or ordering a new trial. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the High Court of Madras for further consideration in light of the Court's findings on the inadmissibility of certain confessional statements.
|
