1963 (4) TMI 68 - SC - Indian Laws

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

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentences, as the confession to the Excise Inspector was deemed inadmissible under ... Admissibility of confessional statement recorded by investigating Excise Officer - construction of 'police officer' in s.25 of the Indian Evidence Act - statutory deeming of an Excise Officer as officer in charge of a police-station for limited purposes (s.78(3) Bihar and Orissa Excise Act) - exclusion of statements recorded during investigation by s.162, Code of Criminal Procedure - test whether investigatory powers tend to facilitate obtaining a confession - effect of material alterations in seizure memo on reliability and voluntariness of confessionAdmissibility of confessional statement recorded by investigating Excise Officer - construction of 'police officer' in s.25 of the Indian Evidence Act - test whether investigatory powers tend to facilitate obtaining a confession - Whether the confessional statement recorded by the Excise Inspector is inadmissible under s.25, Indian Evidence Act, because the Excise Inspector is a 'police officer' for that purpose. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the functional test whether the powers conferred on the Excise Officer (under ss.77-79 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act and the notification empowering Inspectors/Sub Inspectors) are such as to establish a direct or substantial relationship with the prohibition in s.25 - i.e., whether those powers tend to facilitate obtaining confessions. The majority held that an Excise Officer empowered to investigate under s.77(2) and to exercise the powers of an officer in charge of a police station (s.78(1)-(4)), by virtue of the deeming provision, exercises investigatory powers analogous to those of a police officer and therefore a confession recorded by him falls within s.25 and is inadmissible. The Court relied on the objective of s.25 to guard against confessions extorted or obtained by virtue of investigatory authority, and rejected an argument based on the officer's dominant revenue purpose where investigatory powers exist which could facilitate extortion of confessions. The contrary view expressed in a concurring judgment (which would construe 'police officer' more narrowly and not include such Excise Officers) was expressly considered and rejected by the majority reasoning.Confession recorded by the Excise Inspector is inadmissible under s.25, Indian Evidence Act.Exclusion of statements recorded during investigation by s.162, Code of Criminal Procedure - statutory deeming of an Excise Officer as officer in charge of a police-station for limited purposes (s.78(3) Bihar and Orissa Excise Act) - Whether the statement/confession is rendered inadmissible by s.162, Cr.P.C., because it was recorded by an Excise Officer while investigating an excise offence. - HELD THAT: - The majority reasoned that, because the Excise Officer is for the purposes of s.156 Cr.P.C. and by virtue of s.78(3) deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station for the area to which he is appointed and is empowered to investigate under s.77(2), the statement made to him during that investigation falls within the class of statements contemplated by s.162 (i.e., statements recorded by an officer conducting investigation) and accordingly is inadmissible except for limited purposes allowed by s.162. The Court therefore treated s.25 and s.162 as both operating to exclude the confession recorded by the Excise Officer in the course of his investigation.Statement/confession recorded by the Excise Officer during investigation is excluded by s.162 Cr.P.C. and is not admissible for prosecution (save for purposes permitted by s.162).Effect of material alterations in seizure memo on reliability and voluntariness of confession - admissibility of confession and sufficiency of evidence to sustain conviction - Whether, after excluding the confessional statement, the remaining prosecution evidence (including the seizure memo) suffices to sustain conviction and whether the seizure memo and circumstances cast doubt on voluntariness of the confession. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the seizure memo and found material alterations and erasures that rendered the document unreliable. The majority observed that the prosecution depended on the confession to connect the appellant to the incriminating bundle found in the car, and without the confession the prosecution evidence did not establish that the appellant had exclusive possession of the seized ganja. Further, the alterations in the seizure memo and the conduct of the Excise Inspector undermined confidence in the voluntariness and bona fides of the alleged confession. The majority concluded that, with the confession inadmissible and the seizure memo tainted, the remaining evidence was insufficient in law to sustain conviction. (A concurring opinion reached the same ultimate result by holding the confession inadmissible on other grounds and by finding voluntariness not established.)Seizure memo is materially altered and unreliable; without the confession the prosecution case is insufficient; conviction cannot be sustained.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant are set aside because the confessional statement recorded by the Excise Inspector is inadmissible (and the investigatory statements are excluded by s.162 Cr.P.C.), the seizure memo is materially altered and unreliable, and the remaining evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction. 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.