Evidence Act, 1872: s.27 – Settled Legal Position – Going by the parameters of s.27 of the Evidence Act, only so much of information which relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered can be stated to have been proved – Only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of certain facts alone could be marked in evidence and not the entire of the statement – All the earlier facts narrated in the statement about past history which are in the nature of self-implication, would be inadmissible as amounting to a confession made to a police officer.
Practice and Procedure: The Prosecuting Agency should u/s.27 of Evidence Act, 1872 record only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of fact – The practice of putting the confession of the accused made to the police officer which is otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act must immediately be stopped as such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. Evidence: Circumstantial Evidence – Legal Position – The circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be fully established and the circumstances forming the chain of evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and should rule out every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved by the prosecution.
Media Trial: Consequences and Limitations – All matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel – If at all there was a voluntary statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law – The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law – Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in the domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of criminal justice.
Criminal law: Approach of Court in considering the involvement of accused in other crime – Distinction, during bail and trial proceedings – Approach at different stages including the stage of considering the bail application are qualitatively different – At the stage of consideration of bail, the primary concern is to weigh in balance the liberty of an accused and the possible prejudice that may get visited upon the societal interest in case he is released and therefore it would be apt and proper to consider his involvement in other crimes – But at the stage of final assessment whether conviction be recorded or not, the matter must be considered purely on its merits unless the very membership of a gang or a group or an outfit itself can amount to an offence or as an aggravated form of an offence – At the stage of sentencing, his involvement in other crimes may be a relevant factor provided the concerned material in the form of concluded judgments in the other matters are brought on record in a manner known to law – The established involvement in other matters would then certainly be relevant while dealing with the question whether the concerned accused is required to be dealt with sternly or leniently.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It was observed by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya and Ors. v. King-Emperor the words - “with which I stabbed A” were inadmissible since they did not relate to the discovery of knife in the house of the informant. Applying this logic, only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of certain facts alone could be marked in evidence and not the entirely of the statement. Coming to the instant case and going by the principle and the illustration highlighted by the Privy Council the expression “where we committed murder” must not come on record. Similarly, all the earlier facts narrated in the statement about past history which are in the nature of selfimplication, would be inadmissible as amounting to a confession made to a Police Officer. All the statements must be read accordingly. [Para 18][579-C-F]
2. It must be observed that there is a tendency on part of the Prosecuting Agency in getting the entire statement recorded rather than only that part of the statement which leads to the discovery of facts. In the process, a confession of an accused which is otherwise hit by the principles of Evidence Act finds its place on record. Such kind of statements may have a direct tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the Court. This practice must immediately be stopped. In the present case, the Trial Court not only extracted the entire statements but also relied upon them. The other disturbing feature that may be noticed is that voluntary statements of the appellants were recorded on a DVD which was played in Court and formed the basis of the judgment of the Trial Court. Such a statement is again in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act. If at all the accused were desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of the Code. Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on record as evidence. The Trial Court erred in exhibiting those DVD statement. As a matter of fact, it went further in relying upon them while concluding the matter on the issue of conviction. [Paras 19 and 20][579-F-H; 580-A-C]
3. What has further aggravated the situation is the fact that said statements on DVD recorded by the Investigating Agency were played and published in a program named “Putta Mutta” by Udaya TV. Allowing said DVD to go into the hands of a private TV channel so that it could be played and published in a program is nothing but dereliction of duty and direct interference in the administration of Justice. All matters relating to the crime and whether a particular thing happens to be a conclusive piece of evidence must be dealt with by a Court of Law and not through a TV channel. If at all there was a voluntary statement, the matter would be dealt with by the Court of Law. The public platform is not a place for such debate or proof of what otherwise is the exclusive domain and function of Courts of law. Any such debate or discussion touching upon matters which are in the domain of Courts would amount to direct interference in administration of Criminal Justice. [Para 21][580-D-F]
4. The approach at certain stages including the stage of considering the bail application may be qualitatively different. At the stage of consideration of bail, the primary concern is to weigh in balance the liberty of an accused and the possible prejudice that may get visited upon the societal interest in case he is released. It would therefore be apt and proper to consider his involvement in other crimes. But at the stage of final assessment whether conviction be recorded or not, the matter must be considered purely on its merits unless the very membership of a gang or a group or an outfit itself can amount to an offence or as an aggravated form of an offence. Again, at the stage of sentencing, his involvement in other crimes may be a relevant factor provided the concerned material in the form of concluded judgments in the other matters are brought on record in a manner known to law. The established involvement in other matters would then certainly be relevant while dealing with the question whether the concerned accused is required to be dealt with sternly or leniently. [Para 23][581-B-E]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010)
2 SCC 748 : [2010] 2 SCR 119 – relied on.
Pulukuri Kotayya and Ors. v. King-Emperor AIR (34) 1947 PC 67 – reffered to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.