Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, accused in a murder case under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, challenged an order of the Sessions Judge marking their voluntary statements recorded by the Investigating Officer as exhibits (Exs.P26 to P30) during the trial. The High Court of Karnataka examined the voluntary statements and found that they contained confessions regarding the murder but did not lead to any discovery of fact as required under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court noted that the statements were recorded on 08.12.2012 and 10.03.2012, and the Investigating Officer (PW26) had not discovered any material fact in pursuance of these statements. The Sessions Judge had relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in (2013) 4 Crimes SC 148, but the High Court found that the names of the parties in that case were not mentioned. The High Court held that the confessional statements were inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, as they were made to a police officer and did not fall within the exception under Section 27. Consequently, the court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and directed that the voluntary statements be excluded from evidence.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Interlocutory Order - Section 397 r/w 401 CrPC - The court entertained a revision petition against an order of the Sessions Judge marking voluntary statements of accused as exhibits during trial, holding that the order was not purely interlocutory as it affected the rights of the accused - Held that revision is maintainable (Para 6).
B) Evidence Law - Confession - Admissibility - Sections 25, 26, 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Confessional statements made to a police officer are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of a fact under Section 27 - The voluntary statements of the petitioners recorded by the Investigating Officer did not result in any discovery of fact, hence they are not admissible - Held that the Sessions Judge erred in marking them as exhibits (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the voluntary statements of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer, which do not lead to any discovery of fact, can be admitted in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated 28.01.2015, and directed that the voluntary statements (Exs.P26 to P30) be excluded from evidence.
Law Points
- Confessional statements not leading to discovery of fact under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872 are inadmissible
- Voluntary statements recorded by police without discovery are hit by Sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Act
- Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973 (CrPC) allows revision against interlocutory orders in certain circumstances
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (03) 49
Criminal Revision Petition No.264 of 2015
P.M.Nawaz for Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, K.Nageshwarappa (HCGP)
Mudderu Rajappa, Mudderu Dhayamappa, D.S.Dhananjaya, D.Rangappa, D.S.Govindappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition challenging an order of the Sessions Judge marking voluntary statements of accused as exhibits in a murder trial.
Remedy Sought
Setting aside the order dated 28.01.2015 passed in S.C.No.64/2012 by the I Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, and excluding the voluntary statements from evidence.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that their voluntary statements recorded by the Investigating Officer were inadmissible as they did not lead to any discovery of fact under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Previous Decisions
The Sessions Judge had marked the voluntary statements as Exs.P26 to P30 during the trial while recording evidence of PW26 (Investigating Officer).
Issues
Whether the voluntary statements of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer, which do not lead to any discovery of fact, are admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Whether the order marking such statements as exhibits is interlocutory and thus not revisable under Section 397 CrPC?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the voluntary statements were confessions made to a police officer and are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, as they did not lead to any discovery of fact under Section 27.
The State (respondent) supported the Sessions Judge's order, presumably arguing that the statements were admissible under Section 27.
Ratio Decidendi
Confessional statements made to a police officer are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless they lead to the discovery of a fact under Section 27. Since the voluntary statements in this case did not result in any discovery, they could not be admitted in evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
A perusal of the voluntary statements produced by the petitioners reveal that on their arrest, PW26- the Investigating Officer recorded the said statements on 08.12.2012 and 10.03.2012.
Any how scrutiny of all these voluntary statements does not reveal any discovery in pursuance of the facts disclosed.
In the result, the petition is allowed. The order dated 28.01.2015 passed in S.C.No.64/2012 is set aside. The voluntary statements of the petitioners marked as Exs.P26 to 30 shall be excluded from evidence.
Procedural History
The petitioners were arrested for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and other minor offences. A charge sheet was filed in Sessions Case No.64/2012. During trial, while recording evidence of PW26 (Investigating Officer), the Sessions Judge marked the voluntary statements of the petitioners as Exs.P26 to P30. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.264 of 2015 under Section 397 read with 401 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 302, 149
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 397, 401
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 25, 26, 27
