1936 (10) TMI 13 - HC - Indian Laws

Conviction Overturned: Insufficient Evidence for False Weight Possession; Fines to Be Refunded Due to Inadmissible Confession.

The HC set aside the conviction and sentences of the petitioner under Section 266 IPC for possessing a false weight, due to insufficient evidence proving ... - Issues:Conviction under Section 266 of the Indian Penal Code for possession of a false weight. Admissibility of the accused's statement as a confession.Analysis:1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 266 of the Indian Penal Code for being in possession of a false weight knowingly. The prosecution's evidence against the petitioner was based on the discovery of a false rupee in the petitioner's possession. The key element required for conviction was the petitioner's knowledge that the rupee was false. The prosecution initially failed to prove this crucial element. However, the petitioner's own statement, admitting his knowledge of the rupee being false, was used to fill this gap in the evidence. The court referred to a previous case where a similar situation occurred, and it was held that such admissions cannot be used to supply missing elements in the prosecution's case. Therefore, the court concluded that the prosecution's case lacked the essential element of 'scienter,' and the petitioner should have been discharged at that stage.2. Another significant ground for the court's decision was the admissibility of the accused's statement as a confession. The petitioner had made a statement to the police officer regarding the contents of the tin found in his possession. The court considered this statement to be a confession rather than a mere statement of fact. Referring to legal precedent, the court emphasized that statements made to the police should be classified as confessions or admissions based on the purpose for which the prosecution intends to use them. In this case, the prosecution relied on the accused's statement as true, making it a confession. The court agreed with this classification and highlighted the inadmissibility of confessions made to the police under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, the court held that the accused's statement should not have been admitted as evidence, further weakening the prosecution's case.3. The court emphasized the importance of excluding confessions made to the police during the investigation of a crime. Even if a confession relates to a different crime, it remains inadmissible under the law. The court cited previous judgments to support this principle and reiterated that the spirit of the Indian Evidence Act aims to prevent the use of confessions obtained by the police. Considering the grave infirmities in the prosecution's case, including the lack of prima facie evidence against the accused and the admission treated as a confession, the court allowed the criminal revision case. As a result, the conviction and sentences were set aside, and any collected fine was ordered to be refunded.