Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) Require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry;
(c) Examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case".

He further contended that confessional statement was not made voluntarily. On the contrary it is evident from the statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.PC answer to question no.5 appellant stated that by force Intelligence Officer obtained his handwriting on some papers and they obtained the signature on some blank papers. Therefore, Mr. Basu contended that so called confessional statement is hit by Sections 21 and 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In support of his contention reliance was placed on (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 344 (Raju Premji Vs Customs, Ner, Shillong Unit) (Paras-21, 23, 24, 25) and (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 555 (Nirmal Singh Pehlwan @ Nimma Vs Inspector, Customs, Customs House ) (Paras-8, 15) .

He further contended that several agencies have been vested with the power to record the statement of the accused but all the agencies do not enjoy equal power. He further contended that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is different than the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.PC. It was his contention that Court may not accept the statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.PC, but the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act should be considered which is accepted by the Court. Therefore, the statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be treated as confessional statement.

From a bare reading of the alleged voluntary/confessional statement of Haniph Seikh it cannot be accepted by a person of ordinary prudence. On the face of the so called voluntary/confessional statement of the accused it is unbelievable that an illiterate person can give this type of voluntary/confessional statement while he is in police custody. Furthermore, considering the answers given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C we are of the opinion that the accused was compelled to sign over some blank paper and nothing was explained or read over to the accused by the so called translator Gopal Chandra Das, Head Clerk, Translator, District Judge, North 24-Pargnas, Barasat. We cannot also ignore that from the very beginning accused was under the police custody and he was interrogated by the police officer and he was not free to move. Therefore, any statement made by him in the police custody cannot be accepted as voluntary/confessional statement. Such statement cannot be treated as voluntary one. But only can be described as statement forcefully obtained by the police personnel from the accused under threat and coercion while he was in police custody which squarely offends Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is well settled by catena of Supreme Court decisions that any confessional statement given by the accused before police is inadmissible. Therefore, it is wholly insufficient to convict the accused on the basis of such so called confessional statement. In this context 'Section 25 and 26' of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are set out below:-

"Section 25-Confession to police officer not to be proved.-No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence."
"Section 26-Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.-No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person".

We also should be very much cautious before considering statement of the accused as voluntary/confessional statement under Section 67 of the said Act whether it was willingly or voluntarily made by the accused, considering the law as stipulated under Section 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act.