Conviction Based On Confession Statement Of Accused: Experts Demand Reconsideration Of Supreme Court Judgment

Legal experts demanded re-consideration of a recent Supreme Court Judgment whereby a two-Judge bench of the Court upheld the concurrent conviction and sentence of an accused in a case of dacoity with murder (S.396 IPC) based on a confession statement of accused produced by police to prove recovery of some incriminating articles under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.The Bench of Justice NV Ramana and Abdul Nazeer in Raju Manjhi Vs. State of Bihar dismissed the appeal against the Judgment of Patna High Court, whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused-appellant and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gaya.The Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the confessional statement of the appellant has no evidentiary value under law for the reason that it was extracted from the accused under duress by the police.“It is true, no confession made by any person while he was in the custody of police shall be proved against him. But, the Evidence Act provides that even when an accused being in the custody of police makes a statement that reveals some information leading to the recovery of incriminating material or discovery of any fact concerning to the alleged offence, such statement can be proved against him In the case on hand, before looking at the confessional statement made by the accused-appellant in the light of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, may be taken into fold for limited purposes. From the aforesaid statement of the appellant, it is clear that he had explained the way in which the accused committed the crime and shared the spoils. He disclosed the fact that Munna Manjhi was the Chief/Head of 12 the team of assailants and the crime was executed as per the plan made by him. It is also came into light by his confession that the accused broke the doors of the house of informant with the aid of heavy stones and assaulted the inmates with pieces of wood (sticks). He [Accused] categorically stated that he and Rampati Manjhi were guarding at the outside while other accused were committing the theft. The recoveries of used polythene pouches of wine, money, clothes, chains and bangle were all made at the disclosure by the accused which corroborates his confessional statement and proves his guilt. Therefore, the confessional statement of the appellant stands and satisfies the test of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is evident from the confessional statement of the accused that at the time of occurrence he and another accused Rampati Manjhi were guarding outside the informant's house while other accused were committing dacoity inside. We do not think that there is any justification to the argument that as none of the prosecution witnesses could be able to identify the appellant, he cannot be termed as accused. In our view, such non-identification would not be fatal to the prosecution case in the given facts and circumstances”.According to Justice V Ramkumar, Former Kerala High Court Judge the judgment is neither legally sound nor sustainable.“The conclusion made in the judgment by a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Raju Manjhi V/s State of Bihar rendered on 02-08-2018 in Criminal Appeal No.1333/2009, to satisfy the test of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, I am afraid, is neither legally sound nor sustainable. In paragraph 13 of the verdict the Apex Court relies on the following circumstances in the confessional statement of the appellant/accused to justify its admissibility under Section 27:- He has explained the way in which the accused committed the crime and shared the spoils. He disclosed the fact that one Munna Manjhi was the head of the team of assailants. He disclosed that the crime was executed as per the plan made by the said head. His confession reveals that the accused broke the doors of the house of the informant with the aid of heavy stones and assaulted the inmates with pieces of wood (sticks). He categorically stated that he and Rampati Manjhi were guarding at the outside while the other accused were committing the theft. The above statements of the accused recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, in my opinion, go beyond the pale of admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act since they do not distinctly relate to the “fact discovered” within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act”.Speaking to LiveLaw, former Supreme Court Judge and author of many judgments relating to Section 27 of Evidence Act, Justice KT Thomas said;“It appears that the bench has relied on a confessional statement of accused before police in extenso on the strength of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Though the section was extracted in the judgment I feel that the bench has omitted to consider the settled position established through earlier judicial pronouncement including the celebrated decision of Privy Council in Kottayya Vs Emperor. Our Supreme Court has time and again upheld the ratio of Justice John...

Conviction Based On Confession Statement Of Accused: Experts Demand Reconsideration Of Supreme Court Judgment

M.A RASHID

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Conviction Based On Confession Statement Of Accused: Experts Demand Reconsideration Of Supreme Court Judgment

M.A RASHID

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers