9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the appellant's detention. 2. Admissibility of the appellant's confessional statement. 3. Sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellant. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Appellant's Detention: The appellant's counsel argued that the detention was illegal as the appellant was arrested on 2-7-2001 but produced before the Magistrate only on 7-7-2001. However, the court found this claim to be erroneous. The records indicated that the appellant was produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest, specifically on 3-7-2001. Thus, the detention was deemed legal. 2. Admissibility of the Appellant's Confessional Statement: The appellant's counsel challenged the admissibility of the confessional statement on two grounds: - Non-compliance with Section 164(2) Cr.P.C.: The Magistrate did not observe the necessary preliminaries before recording the confession. - Administration of Oath: The Magistrate administered an oath to the appellant before recording the confession, violating legal provisions. Upon review, the court found merit in the second ground. The administration of an oath to the appellant was contrary to Section 281 Cr.P.C. and Section 4(2) of the Oaths Act, 1969, which prohibits administering an oath to an accused unless examined as a witness for the defense. The court cited precedents from the Lahore High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Gauhati High Court, which held that administering an oath to an accused before recording a confession renders the confession inadmissible. Consequently, the confessional statement (Exhibit P8) was deemed inadmissible. 3. Sufficiency of Evidence to Convict the Appellant: The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence as there were no eyewitnesses. The key witness, P.W. 1, a Constable at the Bhusuk out-post, testified that he saw the appellant and the deceased engaged in a heated discussion. P.W. 1 left to attend a telephone call and returned to find the deceased lying dead in a pool of blood, with the appellant standing at the door-step holding a bamphok. P.W. 1 did not witness the actual assault but inferred that the appellant was the assailant based on the circumstances. The court noted that the appellant's wife was residing in the same house where the out-post was located, and the discussion between the appellant and the deceased centered around her. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 19) seized the appellant's blood-stained clothes, which were confirmed by the serologist's report to contain human blood. Despite the exclusion of the confessional statement, the court concluded that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. The appellant's presence at the scene, the immediate aftermath, and the absence of any other person at the time of the incident led the court to hold the appellant responsible for the deceased's death. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and life sentence of the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. The judgment was concurred by both presiding judges. Separate Judgments: - R.K. Patra, C.J.: Delivered the primary judgment. - N. Surjamani Singh, J.: Agreed with the judgment.
|
