A confessional statement with case laws is very important for practical use. I would like to explain it with some important case laws, so let us see a confessional statement with case laws. As the defense has no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 164, such statements can never be treated as substantive evidence of the particulars of the fact.
But the same can certainly be used for contradiction or corroboration of witnesses who made it. The failure to comply with Section 164(3), Cr PC, or with the High Court Circulars will not render the confessions inadmissible in evidence.
Relevancy and admissibility of evidence have to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. If a confession does not violate any one of the conditions operative under Sections 24 to 28 of the Evidence Act, it will be admissible in evidence.
But as in respect of any other admissible evidence, oral or documentary, so in the case of confessional statements which are otherwise admissible, the Court has still to consider whether they can be accepted as true. If the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of a confession appear to cast doubt on the veracity or voluntariness of the confession, the Court may refuse to act upon the confession even if it is admissible in evidence.
Strict and faithful compliance with Section 164 of the RECORDING OF CONFESSIONS AND STATEMENTS the Code and with the instructions issued by the High Court affords in a large measure the guarantee that the confession is voluntary. The failure to observe the safeguards prescribed therein are in practice calculated to impair the evidentiary value of the confessional statements, Law is well settled that a confession made before a Police Officer is not admissible.
The presence of the police, when confession is being recorded does not free the mind of the accused from police influence. Hence, such a statement has little evidentiary value. The Court Sub – Inspector is admittedly a uniformed police officer attached to the Court.
Law is well settled that any confession recorded in presence of a police officer is a nullity and no reliance can be placed upon Ext. 9, the confession said to have been made by the accused, which he later retracted in his statement made under Section 313, Cr PC2 It was held this confessional statement made by the accused charged for his wife’s murder can be based for conviction? In the instant case, Court had not warned the prosecution witness before recording the statement. He has not even given some time to think whether he should make such a statement.
There is no certificate appended to the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 164, Cr PC disclosing that the Magistrate has followed the mandatory provisions of Section 164, Cr PC before recording the statement. Therefore, the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded by PW – 33 cannot be used as the confession of prosecution witnesses. He is not an approver.¹
confessional statement with case laws
In Gulam Hussain v. S. Reynolds, Superintendent of Customs, it was observed as follows ( Para 16 ) – ” 16. Regarding Section 24 of the Evidence Act the case of the appellant was that since the confessional statement was made under inducement and threat and physical assault which, the High Court on examination, declined to accept the facts emerging from the evidence in the case, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the order in that regard in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.” the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise.
confessional statement with case laws
Rajamundry v. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. Apex Court held that the provision in Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code empowers a Judicial Magistrate to record any confession or statement made to him during the course of the investigation. The power conferred by section 164, Criminal Procedure Code to record confessions and statements can be exercised only by a Judicial Magistrate. Even a police officer on whom confession.
Subsections ( 2 ) and ( 4 ) deal with the procedure which such power of a Magistrate has been granted is forbidden from recording a trait has to follow while recording inculpatory statements made by persons Referring to Section 108 of the Customs Act, this Court observed Paras 11 and 12 of Cri LJ 494 ” Section 108 of the Customs Act does not contemplate any magisterial intervention. power under the said section is intended to be exercised by a gazetted officer of the Customs Department Sub-section (3) enjoins on the person summoned by the officer to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined. from speaking the truth on the premise that such a statement could be used against him
. There is no involvement of the Magistrate at that stage. The entire idea behind the provision is that the gazetted officer questioning the person must gather all the truth concerning the episode. If the statement so extracted is untrue its utility for the officer gets lost. The ban contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act is an absolute ban. But it must be remembered that there is no ban in regard to the confession made to any person other than a police officer, except when such confession was made while he is in police custody.
The inculpatory statement made by any person under Section 108 is to non-police personnel and hence it has no tinge of inadmissibility in evidence if it was made when the person concerned was not then in police custody. Nevertheless, the caution contained in law is that such a statement should be scrutinized by the Court in the same manner as a confession made by an accused person to any non-police personnel.
The Court has to be satisfied in such cases, that any inculpatory statement made by an accused person to a gazetted officer must also pass the tests prescribed in Section 24 of the Evidence Act. If such a statement is impaired by any of the vitiating premises enumerated in Section 24 that statement becomes useless in any criminal proceedings.
In the judgment, this Court quoted with approval the following observations made by Hidayatullah, J. ( as he then was ) in Haroon Haji Abdullah v. the State of Maharashtra, ( para 6 ) – AKI Magistrate under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but are statements made in answer to a notice under Section 171 – A 21 , Syn 495 RECORDING OF CONFESSIONS AND STATEMENTS of the Sea Customs Act. As they are not made subject to the safeguards under which confessions are recorded by Magistrates they must be especially scrutinized to find out if they were made under threat or promise from someone in authority.
If after such scrutiny they are considered to be voluntary, they may be received against the maker and in the same way as confessions are received, also against a co-accused jointly tried with him. ” Reference was made to the decision in Romesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal, wherein it was held – ” When an inquiry is being conducted under section 108 of the Customs Act, and a statement is given by a person against whom the inquiry is being held it is not a statement made by a person accused of an offense and the person who gives the statement does not stand in the character of an accused person.
Referring the cases by the court for Confessional Statement (Confessional Statement with Case Laws)
” This Court also referred the case in Percy Rustomji Basta v. the State of Maharashtra, and also the three-Judge Bench decision in Harbansingh Sardar Lenasingh v. the State of Maharashtra, ( supra ); Veera Ibrahim v. The State of Maharashtra, (1976) 2SCC 302: AIR 1976 SC 1167 1976 Cri LJ 860 and Poolpandi v. Supdt. Central Excise The conclusions of the Court were summarised as follows –
“We hold that a statement recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence. The Court has to test whether the inculpating portions were made voluntary ly or whether it is vitiated on account of any of the premises envisaged in Section 24 of the Evidence Act.”
