Skip to main content

Sustainability of convictions on the basis of confessional statements

Dealing with the question of admissibility of confessional statements so as to establish criminal conspiracy vide Section 120B of the Penal Code, 1860, a bench comprising of  Dr. A.K. Sikri and UU Lalit observed that the High Court’s approach of relying upon the confessional statements, otherwise inadmissible, with the aid of 'other connected evidence' is contrary to law.

The inadmissibility of confessional statements, as submitted by advocate Sushil Kumar on behalf of the Appellants,  stood accepted and established by the Court owing to the joint operation of Sections 25 and 26 of the  Evidence Act, 1872,whereby confession to a police officer and confession made by an accused in police custody do not stand proved as against him. The definition of the term 'confession' meanwhile, was restricted to “mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt and not the admission of an incriminating fact, howsoever grave or conclusive”. Extending its deliberation to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Court observed that it serves as a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, stipulating that information received from an accused, while in police custody, may be used against him only to the extent that it has led directly to the discovery of a fact and provided that the information given must relate “distinctly” to the fact discovered.

While considering the question as to whether a confessional statement made by a co-conspirator in a separate case is relevant to prove the charge of conspiracy, the bench relied on the observations made and decisions laid down in Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal [(2002) 7 SCC 334] and Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala [(2001) 7 SCC 596] so as to declare that once the common intention has ceased to exist, as in the case of a post-arrest statement, any statement made by a former conspirator thereafter cannot be regarded as one made in reference to their common intention, [Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 523, decided on May 29, 2015]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2015/06/03/sustainability-of-convictions-on-the-basis-of-confessional-statements.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more