1965 (5) TMI 37 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction overturned, appellant released. Exclusion of police confessions highlighted. Admissibility criteria emphasized.

AGHNOO NAGESIA Versus STATE OF BIHAR

The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be set at liberty forthwith. The Court emphasized ... - Issues Involved1. Admissibility of the first information report (FIR) as evidence.2. Applicability of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.3. Applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.4. Sufficiency of evidence to convict the appellant.Detailed Analysis1. Admissibility of the First Information Report (FIR) as EvidenceThe principal evidence against the appellant consisted of the FIR, which contained a full confession of guilt by the appellant. The Court examined whether the statement or any portion of it is admissible in evidence. The FIR included detailed accounts of the murders, the appellant's motives, and the locations of the dead bodies and the weapon used.2. Applicability of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence ActSection 25 of the Indian Evidence Act states: 'No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence.' The Court emphasized that a confession made to a police officer under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against the accused. This includes confessions made when the accused was free and not in police custody, as well as before any investigation had begun. The Court held that the entire confessional statement in the FIR, including admissions of minor incriminating facts, must be excluded unless proof of it is permitted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act.3. Applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence ActSection 27 provides 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 thereby discovered, may be proved. The Court assumed that the appellant was constructively in police custody when he gave the FIR, making the information leading to the discovery of the dead bodies and the weapon admissible. However, the Court noted that the separability test is misleading and that the entire confessional statement is hit by Section 25, except for the portions coming within the purview of Section 27 and the formal parts identifying the accused as the maker of the report.4. Sufficiency of Evidence to Convict the AppellantThe Court concluded that the evidence against the appellant, which included the discovery of the dead bodies and the weapon based on the information provided by the appellant, the discovery of a blood-stained chadar from the appellant's house, and the fact that the appellant had gone to Dungi Jharan Hills on the morning of August 11, 1963, was not sufficient to convict the appellant of the offenses under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that if the confession is excluded, the remaining evidence on record is insufficient to convict the appellant.ConclusionIn the result, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be set at liberty forthwith. The Court emphasized the importance of excluding confessions made to police officers under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and reiterated the conditions under which Section 27 could be applied. The judgment highlights the stringent requirements for the admissibility of confessional statements and the necessity for sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction.