Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

52 It is contended by Dr.Yug Choudhary, the learned counsel for the appellants that this factor viz. 'Non-provability' of the said confession against "B" would not disentitle "A" from proving the same in his favour. Inspite of such a categorical assertion, it is not specifically dealt with by the learned Advocate General in his submissions whose emphasis, as aforesaid was on non-permissibility of such use in case of the confessions recorded under section 18 of the MCOC Act. Therefore, the question as to whether such a confession would be admissible under such circumstances, when it is not covered by the provisions of section 18 of the MCOC Act, has remained unanswered in the contentions advanced by the learned Advocate General. Again, an emphasis on 52 Cri.Appeal 972-12 joint trial has been placed by referring to section 30 of the Evidence Act and section 18 of the MCOC Act, while discussing the question of relevancy and admissibility of such evidence. Therefore, all these aspects need to be thoroughly discussed before dealing with the claim about the inadmissibility of such evidence by virtue of section 18 of the MCOC Act, which claim, as aforesaid has been put forth without making any submissions or opining about the admissibility of confessions, not covered by section 18 in a situation where an accused in one case wants to use the confession made by another, in another case, and as simplified by the illustration given above. It is necessary because without knowing the position under the general Law, it is not possible to arrive at a correct conclusion with respect to such use of confessions recorded under section 18 of the MCOC Act.

accused, abettor or conspirator is charged and tried in the same case together with the accused who is the maker of the confession.

According to him, such confessions are not relevant or admissible for any other purpose whatsoever irrespective of the provisions of the Evidence Act or the Code, or any other law, by virtue of the non-obstante clause with which section 18 opens.

68 It is not possible to accept this submission. In the first place, it is not that the confession as a piece of evidence, is held to be relevant by virtue of the provisions of section 18 of the MCOC Act. It is relevant as being the species of admissions, which can always be proved against the maker. The logical and legal 67 Cri.Appeal 972-12 relevancy of confessions in the context of charge or accusation against the maker is so obvious that the Evidence Act does not even find it necessary to specifically mention the same and finds it necessary to mention only as to when confessions would not be admissible or relevant. Therefore, section 18 of the MCOC Act cannot be construed as a section making confessions relevant as a piece of evidence. Though relevant, confessions made to a police officer or while in the custody of a police officer are not permitted to be proved by virtue of the provisions of section 25 or 26 of the Evidence Act, and it is this situation for overcoming which section 18 has been enacted. It overrides the provisions making confessions made to police officers, and confessions made while in the custody of police, inadmissible or unprovable. It permits the proof of certain types of confessions made to police in certain circumstance to be admitted in evidence in the circumstances mentioned in the said section. What section 18 does is, that it removes the prohibition regarding proving of certain confessions and cannot be construed as a provision which restricts the use of confessions which would otherwise be permissible. In other words, section 18 can be no stretch of imagination, be construed as restricting the receivability of confessions which are under the 68 Cri.Appeal 972-12 Evidence Act or under any other law admissible either as confessions, or for some other and collateral purposes. To treat section 18 as a provision preventing the admissibility of certain types of confession in evidence, would be contrary to the language used in the said section and also to all the principles of interpretation of a statute. That, section 18 is a 'complete Code', as contended by the Learned Advocate General is true only with respect to the admissibility of confessions which would otherwise be inadmissible against the maker and with respect to the procedure for recording the same as also the manner, extent and the circumstances in which the same can be used for that purpose.

but for some other purpose. When sought to be used by someone in his favour, the question of its admissibility cannot be decided by applying parameters for its admissibility as laid down in section 18.

The submissions about requirement of joint trial etc. are absolutely irrelevant in respect of such use of the confessions in question.

71 A confession - even a confession recorded under section 18 of the MCOC Act - may be relevant in some other context depending on the facts of the case, and the controversy involved. For instance, a confession recorded by a Magistrate or by a police officer under the provisions of section 18 of the MCOC Act may be relevant even for showing as to where the confessor, or even the Magistrate or the Officer recording the confession, as the case may be, was at a given time, should there be a controversy or a dispute over such fact. Any such confession may also be relevant for showing that the confessor was in custody on a given date, or 72 Cri.Appeal 972-12 that the Magistrate or officer was on duty, should the controversy arise about such a fact. By the interpretation sought to be put on the provisions of section 18 by the learned Advocate General even such use of the confessions recorded under section 18 of the MCOC Act, would be impermissible. Section 18 cannot be construed as having a magical effect of opening a door for the entry of a certain piece of evidence in favour of the prosecution, (which otherwise would not be admitted for using against accused) and at the same time, closing the door for a piece of evidence which would be admissible in favour of the accused.

72 There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that the confessions in question having been recorded under the provisions of Section 18 of the MCOC Act, cannot be used for the purpose, as intended by the appellants. Since section 18 brings a confession recorded thereunder almost on par with the confession recorded u/s. 164 of the Code, there would be a better case for its admissibility in favour of the accused than that of the confession recorded by a police officer when intended to be used for the same purpose. The record of the confession made by the competent officer under the provisions of section 18 would attract 73 Cri.Appeal 972-12 the presumptions mentioned in section 80 of the Evidence Act, and would undoubtedly be placed on a higher pedestal as a piece of evidence, than a confession recorded by a police officer to which section 18 does not apply. In any case, even when a confession recorded by a police officer and hit by section 25 can be introduced in evidence for some purpose other than for proving the guilt of the maker, provided such use would be relevant under the Evidence Act and not specifically prohibited, then the confession recorded under section 18 of the MCOC Act when intended to be used in similar manner cannot be placed on a worse footing.