Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) The learned counsel further submitted that in Faddi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [AIR 1964 SC 1850] the Hon'ble Supreme Court had elaborated the meaning of the expression 'course of investigation' which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another, reported in (2019) 16 SC 547.
(f) The learned counsel also submitted that in State of Kerala v. Babu reported in (1999) 4 SCC 621 and in Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 148, it was held that the use of case diary by the Court cannot be used to lift the statements recorded under Section 162 Cr.P.C., https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and convert them to legal evidence.
(x). Be that as it may, the language of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, is very clear and it says no confession to a police officer can be proved 'against' a person accused of any offence. The corollary to such a provision would be that the confession can be used in favour of the accused. However, the Division Bench in Sudalaimani's case [cited supra] held that a confession given to the police officer during investigation would amount to a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C., relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of section 32, clause (1), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
(xii). However, the said bar under Section 162 Cr.P.C., was not applicable to a statement falling under Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act. The proviso relating to the applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, to a statement falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C., was incorporated only in the year 1941 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Second Amendment) Act, 1941. The said amendment reads as follows:
164.” (xvi) However, the question that was troubling the Courts as to whether a statement under Section 162 Cr.P.C., would include statements made by an accused, had been clarified by the amendment in the year 1941, by which the proviso to Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., was added, which states that the provisions of Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., would not affect the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. By virtue of this proviso, the legislature made it very clear that the statement made by an accused, including the confession, would be a statement under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. There cannot be any quarrel with the said proposition, as it was further made clear by the judgment in Aghnoo Nagesia's case [cited supra], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that Section 162 was wide enough to include confessional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis statements made to a police, during the course of the investigation.