Confession Made By Accused In Police Custody Cannot Be Relied Upon To Hold Him Guilty: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated that a confession made by an accused in police custody cannot be relied upon to hold him guilty.
In order to establish an offence of dacoity under Section 391 of the IPC, the Court stated that robbery must be committed by five or more persons conjointly. For an offence punishable under Section 412 of the IPC, the proceeds must result from dacoity. The Court stated that the car snatched at gunpoint by four persons could not be said to be members of the gang of dacoits. Therefore, the offence described did not meet the criteria for dacoity under Section 391 of the IPC.
A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Jain observed, “In order to attract offence of dacoity as adumbrated under Section 391 of the Code, the essential ingredient is commission of robbery by 05 or more persons conjointly. In order to constitute offence punishable under Section 412, it is quite essential that the proceeds must be result of dacoity. Thus, statement of PW-5 and the contents of FIR when gazed in the light of aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the offence as alleged under FIR No.306 does not constitute offence of dacoity as defined under Section 391 of the Code. The property i.e. car was snatched at the gun point by 04 persons involved can also not be said to be members of the gang of dacoits.”
Advocate Madhur Singh represented the appellant, while AAG R.K. Ambavta appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner challenged the judgment of the trial court where they were convicted of an offence punishable under Section 412 of the IPC.
An FIR was filed regarding the possession of a stolen car, alleged to be transferred by the commission of dacoity. One of the accused was apprehended in possession of the vehicle without a license plate, and during interrogation, he disclosed the second accused as the source of the car, purportedly obtained through by commission of dacoity.
The Court clarified that dacoity, as defined under Section 391 of the IPC, required five or more persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery.
The Bench then stated that apart from disclosures made by the co-accused while in police custody, there is no other incriminating evidence against the second accused since the recovery of the car was alleged to have been made from the first accused.
“Apart from disclosures made by the co-accused while in police custody, there is no other incriminating evidence against Navdeep. Recovery of car is alleged to have been made from Sudhir Kumar,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of compromise was not maintainable since both offences were compoundable in nature. “Confession made by accused in police custody cannot be relied upon to hold appellant guilty,” the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the High allowed the appeal to the extent that the conviction of one of the accused was altered from Section 412 to Section 411 of the IPC, while maintaining the conviction of the other accused under Section 412 IPC.
Cause Title: Navdeep @ Chhotu & Anr. v. State of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2024:PHHC:078283)
