2023 S C M R 139
Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898 ) ---
---- Ss . 161 & 164 --- Judicial and extra - judicial confession --- Scope --- Any confession made by an accused , whether judicial or extra - judicial , should be taken into consideration in toto and could not be split into pieces , nor any part of the same can be taken to favour the as a prosecution --- Any such confession may be taken into consideration but the court cannot select out of the statement , the passage , which goes against the accused --- Such confession must be accepted or rejected whole ; it is not open to accept only a part of the confessional statement conviction --- Confession has to be read as a whole and not by of the petitioner and reject the other part while maintaining his relying only on the inculpatory part of the confession / the statement .
Control of Narcotic Substances Act ( XXV of 1997 ) ---
---- S . 9 ( c ) --- Possession of narcotic --- Reappraisal of evidence --- Benefit of doubt --- Safe custody and transmission of sample parcels to the office of Chemical Examiner not established --- Recovery was effected on 18.12.2013 and the sample parcels were received in the office of Chemical Examiner on 20.12.2013 by one police official but the said official was never produced before the Court --- Moharrar of the Malkhana was also not produced to confirm that he kept the sample parcels in the Malkhana in safe custody from 18.12.2013 to 20.12.2013 --- Where and in whose custody the sample parcel remained during such time remained a mystery --- So the safe custody and safe transmission of the sample parcels was not established by the prosecution and such defect on the part of the prosecution by itself was sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to the accused --- Furthermore ,there was no direct evidence available on record to indicate the accused had exclusive knowledge of presence of narcotics in the luggage lying exculpatery in the boot of vehicle --- Judicial confession of accused was confession and from the said confession , conscious knowledge and conscious possession of the narcotics , qua the accused , was not established ; hence , his conviction on such exculpatory statement confession was not sustainable --- Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge .
Control of Narcotic Substances Act ( XXV of 1997 ) ---
---- S . 9 ( c ) --- Possession of narcotic Safe custody and transmission of sample parcels to the office of Chemical Examiner not established ... In cases under section 9 ( c ) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act , 1997 , it is duty of the prosecution to establish each and every step from the stage recovery , making of sample parcels , safe custody of sample parcels and safe transmission of the sample parcels to the concerned laboratory --- Such chain has to be established by the prosecution and if any link is missing in such like offences the benefit must be extended to the accused --- In a case containing the said defect on the part of the prosecution it cannot be held with any degree of certainty that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against an accused person beyond any reasonable doubt .
Criminal Procedure Code ( V of 1898 ) ---
( i ) Solitary judicial confession , if made the basis for conviction , had to be relied upon in toto without any pick and choose ;
( ii ) Where there is no other evidence and the confessional statement is the only material on which an accused is convicted , then it has to be either accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole . Where the prosecution fails to prove its case through cogent , reliable and trustworthy evidence , the court can base the conviction on the confessional statement of the accused , however , the same has to be considered in toto and the exculpatory parts of the confession cannot be rejected ;
( iii ) The exculpatory portion of a confession cannot be discarded while proceeding to rely upon the same for decision of the case
( iv ) A confession has to be read as a whole and not by relying only on the inculpatory part of the statement ;
( v ) The confessional statement of a person can only inculpate himself and no other person can be inculpated merely because some other person has made any admission ;
( vi ) The admission of occurrence by the accused with a different version is not a confession of guilt and the Court , without splitting it up , can reject or accept the same in toto , but if the admission in parts or full is of the nature which provides support to prosecution case which is proved through reliable evidence , then of course such statement / confession can be used for the purpose of corroboration and supporting evidence ; and
( vii ) Where there is other prosecution evidence in field which is believable then of course a portion of the confession may , in the light of that evidence , be rejected while acting upon the remainder with the other evidence ;
0 Comments