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

WHAT WAS THE MATTER

• The case Vinod Mali v. State of UP (2021) was a case involving theft of goods and impersonation as a police officer to save the accomplices involved in the act.
• In this case, the police caught a gang of persons who were involved in stealing of goods from the passengers of a train and dealing with them. Further, one of the accused used to impersonate a police officer to save his co-accused if they ever got into trouble.
• During the proceedings before the Trial Court, one of the accused, who was the appellant before the High Court, confessed to have been involved in stealing of goods and impersonation as a police officer. He also admitted to having faced trial on a number of occasions in the case of dealing of stolen goods.

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• Based on this confession, the Trial Court held him liable for the offences under Sections 171,177,411,413,417,419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The accused made an appeal to the Allahabad HC stating that he could not have been charged under Section 413 IPC, which deals with habitually dealing in stolen goods, on 2 main grounds: the appellant did not expressly confess to have committed the offence; and that as a mandatory practice, the Trial Court should have sought details of the past 2 or more convictions in the offence under the section to have held the appellant liable for the offence.

WHAT DID THE COURT HOLD

• The Allahabad HC observed that the accused had confessed to his guilt, and that his confession should not be seen in parts but as a whole. So, if the Trial Court ordered the conviction on the basis of the confession, the same cannot be said to be incorrect.
• The Court further observed that the accused, if he had not expressly confessed to his guilt under Section 413, did not deny the question and admitted that he had faced trials in the past on the issue. Since the appellant made the confession, the Trial Court was not obligated to seek the details of previous convictions for dealing in stolen goods.
• By observing such, the High Court upheld the conviction and found the appellant guilty of all the offences listed by the Trial Court.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS CASE?