Allahabad HC Observes That An Accused Cannot Claim That His Confessional Statement Be Considered Regarding Some Offences Only And Not For Others

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Allahabad HC has laid out a very important observation that a confession has to be read and understood as a whole and not in parts.
• The observation was made in a very recent judgement of Vinod Mali v State of UP, wherein the accused was the leader of a gang engaged in stealing goods and dealing in them.
• The accused confessed to his guilt but later made a plea that his confession be considered only in regard to some of the charges levelled against him.
• The High Court rejected his plea stating the above-mentioned observation and his conviction was upheld.

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Vinod Mali v. State of U.P.(2021), an appeal was brought to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad wherein the appellant had contested the order of the Trial Court convicting him for offences under Sections 171,177,411,413,417,419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis of his confession given during the proceedings. It was the contention of the appellant that his confession should be considered partially and not completely, meaning that his confession should be understood in regards to offence under Section 411 and not Section 413. The High Court observed that a confession duly taken with the free-will of the accused would be a proper conviction and has to be considered as a whole and not in parts.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant Vinod Mali, was a member of a gang involved in the theft of goods from passengers travelling in trains. Further, if one of the members of the gang was caught, the appellant would impersonate a police officer and get his accomplice released.

One day, during a routine inspection of the railway station, the police party of Police Station G.R.P., District Gorakhpur, was informed by an informant that some suspicious people were present at gate number 1 and they were heard talking about a robbery. When the police went to the persons, one of which was the appellant, and inquired about their names, the appellant told his name to be Vinod Mali, and said that he was a constable posted in Kotwali, Maharajganj. He also produced an identity card for the same. Finding the ID card to be suspicious, the policemen further questioned the appellant. Finally, the appellant conceded that he was not a constable but the leader of a gang involved in robbery of goods from the passengers travelling in trains. He further disclosed his modus operandi, in which he stated that if any gang member was caught by the people, he would impersonate a police officer and use his forged credentials to secure the freedom of his accomplice. All the persons standing there were arrested and some Alprazolam powder (a prohibited drug under the NDPS Act) along with some stolen motorcycles, stolen mobile phones, stolen tablets and other goods were discovered from their possession. All the accused were booked under Sections 411, 413, 414, 417, 419 and 171 of I.P.C. along with Sections 8,21,22 of the NDPS Act.

The Trial Court, while framing the charges on the accused, framed charges under Sections 171,177,411,413,417,419 of IPC. The details of the provisions are as under:

Section 171 IPC: It deals with a situation wherein a person who is not a public servant, wears or carries a token or any such thing which can associate him/her with a particular public service, with an intention to deceive the public for an illegitimate purpose. Such an act would be an offence under IPC punishable with imprisonment or fine or both.

Section 177 IPC: If a person knowingly gives false information to a public servant, to whom he was legally bound to give correct information, such a person can be held liable under this section. Further, if the information being sought from a person relates to the commission of a crime or the information can prevent a crime, and the person gives false information, a higher punishment can be given to the person under this section.

Section 411 IPC: If any person receives or keeps a property, which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen, with a dishonest intention, such a person can be charged under this section.

Section 413 IPC: If a person receives or deals in a property on a habitual basis, which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen, such a person can be charged under this section.

Section 417 IPC: Under this, if a person is found using dishonest or fraudulent means to deceive another person into following such commands, which can harm the person deceived, can be held liable for cheating and be punished under this section.

Section 419 IPC: Under this, if a person intentionally presents himself to be some other person for the purpose of deceiving someone, such a person can be punished under this section.

During the trial, the accused-appellant confessed to all the offences, but did not expressly confess about the offence under Section 413 IPC. The confession of the accused was taken out of his own free-will and as per the provisions of Section 313 CrPC, under which the Court has been empowered to examine the accused by posing questions to him material to the issue in question.

On the basis of the confession of the accused, the Trial Court held him liable under all the aforementioned sections and was convicted for all the offences under the sections. This order of the trial court was appealed against by the appellant. The appeal was made on the grounds that while the accused confessed to all the sections, he made no such confession with regards to Section 413, and therefore, he could not be charged for the offence. Another ground of appeal was that the trial court should have sought details of past convictions under Section 411, as a proof of the accused being a ‘habitual offender’ under section 413. To support their contention, the counsel for the appellant led emphasis on the judgements of Delhi High Court in Ajay Sethi Vs. State (2017) and Rajasthan High Court in Banne Singh @ Pahalwan Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) in which the Courts held that if a person has to be convicted as a habitual offender under Section 413, he must have been convicted for a minimum two instances under Section 411. On the basis of these judgements, the counsel for the appellant contended that even if the appellant made a confession for Section 413, the trial court should have sought details of previous convictions of the accused, and since no details were sought, the conviction was liable to be set aside.

Justice Ajai Tyagi, who was hearing the matter, went through the facts of the cases cited by the counsel for the appellant and found that there was a basic difference between the facts of the cases cited by the counsel and the case in hand. In the cases cited, the respective accused were named in a lot of chargesheets, but the charges were not confirmed in any of the cases. In those cases, the respective courts observed that there must be a recurring nature of commission of the offence on the part of the accused and merely being charge-sheeted multiple times did not mean that the accused was guilty in all the instances. But in the case in hand, the accused was convicted on the basis of his own confession. Therefore, the conviction was valid.

Further, when the counsel for the appellant insisted upon the requirement of 2 or more previous convictions, the High Court observed that since the accused admitted to his own guilt, there was no need for the Trial Court to seek details of past convictions. This observation of the High Court was based on the fact that while questions regarding his record of past convictions and him being a habitual offender were being put to the accused during his examination, he did not expressly deny it and said that he had faced trials before with regard to the offence. On the basis of the confession, the accused was convicted and it was a valid conviction. The Court made another important observation, that a confession has to be considered as a whole and not in parts, especially if it has been made for a same set of events and out of a person’s own free-will. The Court asserted that if a conviction has been made for an offence, it has to be considered as a whole and not in parts, and that the accused cannot claim that his confession should be understood for only some of all the offence for which he has been charged.

Stating this, the High Court upheld the order of the Trial Court convicting the appellant and with the counsel for the appellant not raising any other argument or contesting conviction in any other conviction, dismissed the appeal.

REVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

While the entire judgement seems agreeable, one instance comes out which may prove to be confusing for some other persons. The Trial Court and the High Court considered the appellant to be a habitual offender punishable under Section 413 on the basis of his confession. But it was also observed that the confession was not direct, as he said that he had been subjected to such trials before. This does not show that he was convicted earlier. Further, as held in the cases cited by the counsel for the appellant, there was a requirement of actual conviction and merely being named in a chargesheet did not mean that the offence was committed. Taking cue from this decision, the accused should have been actually convicted in the trials he faced, and a mere confession should not have been the sole ground for conviction.

In a different situation, if the accused had not confessed having faced trials in the past and the Trial Court had not found the accused guilty in any of the trials he was subjected to, he could not have been held liable for the offence under Section 413. The guilt could not have been expressed beyond reasonable doubt, which is an essential aspect of criminal trials. Therefore, more prudence should have been exercised by the courts while dealing with the issue.

CONCLUSION

The judgement of the Allahabad HC has laid down a very important principle i.e. the non-severability of confessions. The Court clearly laid down that a confession, especially if it relates to the same set of events, cannot be considered in parts and that it has to be considered as a whole. The person making the confession cannot take the plea that the confession should be considered in parts for a particular set of offences and exclude the others. If a conviction has been made on the basis of a confession, it has to be considered for the entire gamut of charges and not just a part of them.