Confession in Police Custody

« »

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court

A bench of Justice Pankaj Jain held that confession made by accused in police custody cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty.
- The Punjab and Haryana High Court held this in the case of Navdeep @ Chhotu and another v. State of Haryana.

On 1st September 2020 the police party while patrolling received secret information that a person is in possession of a Swift Dzire Car without number plate which is a proceed of snatching.
Accused No.2 was apprehended in possession of a white colour Swift Dzire Car.
He suffered a disclosure that the said vehicle was left with him by co-accused Navdeep @ Chhotu.
It is a further case of the prosecution that accused Navdeep – appellant No.1 was apprehended who suffered a disclosure and submitted that Swift Desire Car was proceed of loot.
The Trial Court relied upon the statement of Gurpreet Singh who claimed that he was travelling in his car to his house from Gurugram.
His car was looted by 4 young boys at gun point near Sugar Mill, Jind. FIR No.306 dated 25th August 2020 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.
Trial Court thus held that the prosecution has been able to prove recovery of car in question from appellant No.2 Sudhir which was handed over to him by appellant No.2 Navdeep @ Chhotu.
Trial Court in view of above held both the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 412 IPC.

It is to be noted that Gurpreet Singh alleged that he was robbed by 4 young boys on pistol point.
In order to make out an offence under Section 412 of IPC, it is essential that offence of dacoity must have been committed.
- Consequently, for the purposes of offence of dacoity the number of persons involved in the offence should be more than five.
The Court held that it is clear by the statement of Gurpreet Singh that there was no dacoity, therefore, the offence of Appellant no 2 Sudhir was altered from Section 412 IPC to that of Section 411 IPC.
With regards to Appellant No. 1 Navdeep @ Chotu apart from disclosures made by the co-accused while in police custody, there was no other incriminating evidence against Navdeep.
So far as appellant No.1 Navdeep @ Chotu is concerned, apart from the disclosures made in the present case by both the accused while in police custody, there is no other incriminating evidence against him.
The Court held that confession made in police custody cannot be relied upon to make the accused guilty and hence Appellant Navdeep @ Chotu was ordered to be released.

Section 23 (1) of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
- Section 23(2) of BSA provides that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him.
- Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.
It is to be noted that the law provided for under Section 23 of BSA was spread over three different sections (Section 25, 26 and 27) under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
Section 25 of IEA provides what is now contained Section 23(1) of BSA.

State of U.P v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1961):
- For the ban under Section 25 of IEA to be effective it is not necessary that the person should have been accused of an offence when he made the confession.
- The Court held that the adjectival clause “accused of any offence” is therefore descriptive of the person against whom a confessional statement made by him is declared not provable and does not predicate a condition of that person at the time of making the statement for the applicability of the ban.
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966)
- The Court observed that the expression “accused of any offence” covers a person accused of an offence at the trial whether or not he was accused of the offence when he made the confession.