Trial Courts Might Get Influenced If Inadmissible Confessions Made By Accused To Police Officers Are Made Part Of Depositions Of Prosecution Witnesses: SC
|The Supreme Court has observed that there is every possibility that the Trial Courts may get influenced if inadmissible confessions made by an accused to a police officer are made part of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
The Court set aside the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and acquitted the Appellant who was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 201, 212 and 120-B of the IPC. Although the case involved a “brutal murder,” the Court stated that an accused can only be convicted if his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt on the basis of legally admissible evidence as there cannot be a “moral conviction.”
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih pointed out, “The learned trial judge should not have recorded an inadmissible confession in the deposition. A confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is not admissible in the evidence except to the extent to which Section 27 is applicable. If such inadmissible confessions are made part of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, then there is every possibility that the Trial Courts may get influenced by it.”
Senior Advocate Vinay Navare represented the Appellants, while AOR Samar Vijay Singh appeared for the Respondents.
As per the prosecution, the deceased left his house in a car to visit his sister. Upon leaving her home, he was allegedly abducted by unknown persons in a car. The complainant lodged an FIR after an unsuccessful search. Later, the torso and other body parts of the deceased were recovered from a canal.
The prosecution relied on the CCTV footage from a Bank and the recovery of a vehicle and weapon allegedly used in the crime to incriminate the Appellant.
The Supreme Court stated that the material part of the eyewitness testimony of the deceased’s sister was full of omissions. “These omissions are very significant and relevant as they relate to the most crucial part of the prosecution’s case. Hence, these omissions amount to contradictions in view of the explanation to Section 162 of the CrPC,” the Bench explained.
As for the CCTV footage, the Court observed that it was one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. “Even if one of the circumstances forming part of the chain is not proved, the prosecution case cannot be held as established,” it remarked.
The Bench explained that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Act) was an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act. “It permits certain parts of the statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody to be proved. Under Section 27, only that part of the statement made by the accused is admissible, which distinctly relates to the discovery. It becomes admissible when a fact is discovered as a consequence of the information received from the accused,” the Court stated.
Consequently, the Court held, “The appellants' guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. We quash and set aside the judgments…passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala…as well as the impugned judgment…by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and acquit the appellants. The impugned judgments have already been set aside as far as the other accused are concerned. That part is not disturbed.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State Of Haryana & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 887)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocate Vinay Navare; Advocates Arpit Rai, Tushima, Ankit Ahluwalia and Prabhsharan Singh Mohi; AOR Aviral Kashyap
Respondents: AOR Samar Vijay Singh; Advocates Amit Ojha, Vikas Singh Jangra, Pawan Kishore Singh, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Sabarni Som, Fateh Singh, Azeem A Dsot and Kanika