1963 (4) TMI 68 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court overturns conviction due to inadmissible confession, stresses importance of voluntary confessions

RAJA RAM JAISWAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR

RAJA RAM JAISWAL Versus STATE OF BIHAR - 1964 AIR 828, 1964 SCR (2) 752 Issues Involved:1. Admissibility of confession under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.2. Whether an Excise Officer is considered a 'police officer' under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.3. Applicability of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to statements made to an Excise Officer.4. Voluntariness and credibility of the confession.5. Sufficiency of evidence to sustain the conviction.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility of Confession under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:The primary issue in this appeal was whether the confession made by the appellant to the Excise Inspector was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 25 states, 'No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.' The Court had to determine if the Excise Inspector qualified as a 'police officer' within the meaning of this section.2. Whether an Excise Officer is Considered a 'Police Officer' under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act:The Court examined whether an Excise Officer, empowered under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915, could be deemed a police officer for the purposes of Section 25. The Court noted that under Section 78(3) of the Excise Act, an Excise Officer is deemed an officer in charge of a police station for the purpose of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court concluded that since the Excise Officer has similar powers to those of a police officer, including investigation, arrest, and seizure, he should be considered a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Court emphasized that the powers conferred on the Excise Officer establish a direct relationship with the prohibition enacted by Section 25, as they facilitate obtaining confessions from suspects.3. Applicability of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Statements Made to an Excise Officer:The Court also considered whether Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which excludes statements made to a police officer during an investigation from being used as evidence except for contradiction, applied to statements made to an Excise Officer. The Court held that since the Excise Officer is deemed to be in charge of a police station for the purposes of investigation under the Excise Act, statements made to him are similarly inadmissible under Section 162 of the Code.4. Voluntariness and Credibility of the Confession:The Court scrutinized the voluntariness and credibility of the appellant's confession. The appellant claimed that his confession was obtained under duress and that his signature was taken on a blank paper. The Court found material alterations and erasures in the seizure memo (Ex. F), which cast doubt on the integrity of the document and the voluntariness of the confession. The High Court had ignored these alterations, but the Supreme Court considered them significant enough to question the credibility of the confession.5. Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain the Conviction:The Court evaluated whether the remaining evidence, excluding the confession, was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction under Section 47(a) of the Excise Act. The Court noted that the evidence from the prosecution witnesses (P.Ws. 2, 3, and 4) and the Excise Inspector was not independently sufficient to establish the appellant's exclusive possession of the ganja found in the car. The Court emphasized that the conviction could not be maintained without the confession, which was deemed inadmissible.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentences passed on the appellant. The Court held that the confession made to the Excise Inspector was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the remaining evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction without the confession. The Court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that confessions are obtained voluntarily and that the powers of officers conducting investigations are carefully scrutinized to protect the rights of the accused.