LexINDRA DALAL versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 7 S.C.R. 1083 INDRADALAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (CriminalAppeal No.1261 of2009) MAY29, 2015 [A.K. SIKRI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 r/w. s. 1208 - Contract killing;.... A B Accused came on a scooter to victim-deceased's house and c fired at his chest and head- Thereafter he threw the pistol at the spot and ran away on the scooter- Previous grudge of appellants-accused alleged - Conviction recorded against appellants primarily on the basis of their confessional statements and recovery of scooter from the house of D appellant no. 1 - Held: The confessional statements were recorded when these accused were in police custody- Such statements were inadmissible having regard to ss. 25 and 26 - The information provided by all the accused/appellants in the form of confessional statements, had not led to any E discovery - Recovery of scooter was made in the absence of appellant - This recovery was pursuant to the statement made by PW-2, the brother of the deceased and not on the basis of any disclosure statements made by these appellants - Likewise, insofar as confessional statement allegedly given F by appellant-J was concerned, that was again in another FIR - Therefore, the situation contemplated uls. 27 of the Evidence Act also did not get attracted - Even if the scooter was recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement, it would G have made the fact of recovery of scooter only, as admissible uls.27 of the Evidence Act, and it would not have made the so-called confessional statements admissible which cannot be held as proved against them - Prosecution failed to prove 1083 H 1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 7 S.C.R. A beyond reasonable doubt, the charge of conspiracy against appellants - Conviction set aside - Evidence Act, 1872 - ss25 to 27. Evidence Act, 1872: ss.25 and 26- Philosophy behind B - Discussed. c Words and phrases: 'Confession' - Meaning of - Discussed. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The prosecution had produced one witness (PW-7), who was allegedly the witness of conspiracy. However, during trial, he was declared hostile. Therefore, there was no witness to this D conspiracy. No doubt, such conspiracies are normally hatched in dark and clandestinely and there may not be any eye witnesses. The conviction was recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court against these appellants primarily on the basis of their confessional E statements and recovery of the scooter from the house of appellant-I. The philosophy behind Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act is acceptance of a harsh reality that confessions are extorted by the police' officers by F practicing oppression and torture or even inducement and, therefore, they are unworthy of any crodence. The provision absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a pc>lice officer. The word 'confession' has no where been defined. G However, the courts have resorted to the dictionary meaning and explained that incriminating statements by the accused to the police suggesting the inference of the commission of the crime would amount to confession and, therefore, inadmissible under this provision. It is also H defined to mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt and INDRADALALv. STATE OF HARYANA 1085 not the admission of any incriminating fact, however A grave or conclusive. Section 26 of the Evidence Act makes all those confessions inadmissible when they are made by any person, whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless such a confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, when a B person is in police custody, the confession made by him even to a third person, that is other than a police officer, shall also become inadmissible. In the present case, not only the confessions were made to a police officer, such confessional statements were made by the appellants C after their arrest while they were in police custody. The courts below had relied upon these confessions on the basis of these statements, coupled with 'other connected evidence available on the record', particularly the 0 recovery of the scooter from the old house of appellant- ! and the disclosure/confessional statement made by · appellant-J in another case which was proved by Inspector PW-15. This approach of the High Court is contrary to law. [Para 14, 16 to 20] [1093-F-H; 1094-H; E 1095-A, C-G; 1096-G-H;
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.