Sustainability of convictions on the basis of confessional statements

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Case law- Section 26, 26,and 27- Indra Dalal vs State Of Haryana on 29 May, 2015

Bench: Arjan Kumar Sikri and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.

Facts:

• The deceased's wife, Suraj Kaur was watering the plants in the lawn, the deceased Nand Karan was inside the room and his brother Harish ChanderGodara was on the roof, one young boyUdeyveer aged about 22-25 years, came on a scooter. He told Suraj Kaur that he had come from Rohtak and wanted to meet Master Nand Karan. The deceased came out of the house to the gate.
• Soon thereafter, the boy took out a pistol from his pants pocket and fired at the deceased on his chest. Another shot was fired at the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down crying. 
• First Information Report (FIR) was registered at Police Station. City Dadri, Haryana. Statement of Suraj Kaur was recorded. In her statement, she narrated the abovesaid occurrence and further stated that her husband was got murdered by Dr. Indra Dalal, her brother Bijender and Mahabir, through some unknown person, by hatching a conspiracy.
•  She further stated Dipender(Banti), who was the son of the appellant Indra Dalal and nephew of Bijender, was murdered, in which deceased Nand Karan was implicated along with his sons, namely, Ravinder Kumar and Sandeep, who were even in jail in that connection.
•  In order to take revenge, the appellants Indra Dalal and her brothers Bijender and Mahabir had hatched a conspiracy to kill Nand Karan, for which they enticed Udeyveer and got him murdered through him.
• Appellant Bijender was arrested, he made a disclosure/confessional statementadmitting the aforesaid conspiracy and motive for committing the murder of the deceased. After two days appellant Indra Dalal was arrested and she also made a similar disclosure/confessional statement. On the same day, another confessional statementwas made by Bijender.
• Police recorded the statement of Pradeep Kumar, in which he stated that while he was visiting the clinic of appellant Indra Dalal for medical checkup of his wife, he heard the talks of both the appellants, as per which Bijender was telling Indra Dalal that he had engaged Udeyveer for killing Nand Karan.
• After few days, the scooter was recovered from the old house of Indra Dalal.
• During the trial, in the case filed against the appellants, the prosecution examined eighteen witnesses. Out of which most of them were police officials who proved one or the other disclosure/confessional statements, family of the deceased and Pradeep Kumar who was the alleged witness of conspiracy, but he did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile.
• In the statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, all of them stated that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in the case.
•  They also pleaded that their confessional statements were recorded by putting pressure upon them to compromise the matter of murder of son of Indra Dalal.
• The trial court convicted all accused persons and the High Court has affirmed the same. The reading of the impugned judgment of the High Court highlighted that major portion of the judgment was devoted to the alleged role of accused Udeyveer and the Court came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence against him proving his guilt, who had actually murdered the deceased. As the appellants were concerned, admittedly they have not taken active part in the commission of crime, namely, there was no actus reus. 
• The conviction was recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court against the appellants primarily on the basis of their confessional statements and recovery of the scooter from the house of Indra Dalal.

Issues:

• Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the involvement of the appellants with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC.
• Whether conviction could be sustained on the basis of such statements.

Contentions of the Appellant:

That the confessional statements were admittedly recorded after the arrest of these accused and when these accused were in police custody. Therefore, such statements were inadmissible having regard to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.This approach of the High Court relying upon the confessional statements, otherwise inadmissible, with the aid of 'other connected evidence' is contrary to law.

The only portion of the information contained in the confessional statements that may be proved is provided under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is clear that Section 27 is in the form of proviso to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It makes it clear that so much of such information which is received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, which has led to discovery of any fact, may be used against the accused. Such information as given must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. In the present case, the information provided by all the accused/ appellants in the form of confessional statements, has not led to any discovery.

Background:

All the four convicted persons appealed to the High Court against the judgement given by Sessions Court sentencing them for life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 each for commission of the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court dismissed these appeals affirming the conviction. Udeyveerdid not preferred any further appeal. Hence the three appellants, however, chose to challenge the judgment of the High Court in the Supreme Court which accorded its decision below.

Judgement:

The bench comprising of Dr. A.K. Sikri and UU Lalit observed that the High Court’s approach of relying upon the confessional statements, otherwise inadmissible, with the aid of ‘other connected evidence’ is contrary to law.

The inadmissibility of confessional statements, stood accepted and established by the Court owing to the joint operation of Sections 25 and 26 of the  Evidence Act,1872, whereby confession to a police officer and confession made by an accused in police custody do not stand proved as against him.

The bench was of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the charge of conspiracy against these appellants with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC. As a result, the appeals were allowed and the impugned judgment and sentence were, accordingly, set aside.