Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.54 seconds)
Documents citing Moirangthem Tomba Singh vs State Of Manipur on 8 July, 1983

Phusu Koiri vs State Of Assam on 11 February, 1985

This Court also examined the scope of a "discovery" Under Section 27 in Moirangthem v. State of Manipur, 1984 Cri LJ 536. Therein accused's categorical statement of his concealing the incriminating object at a particular place was held to be admissible. We have no doubt that, the mere discovery of any object would not be accepted as an evidence against the accused unless the statement of the accused which led to the discovery was also proved. Indeed, this view was taken by this Court in Bhandagarh 1984 Cri LJ 217 wherein the Court held that proof of seizure-list in respect of the object discovered pursuant to the information gathered from the statement of the accused will not render admissible evidence of seizure. We feel constrained to observe that the statement must, according to the language and also object of Section 27, "relate distinctly" to the object discovered and in connection therewith it can be proved conclusively if the exact statement or words used are proved. We are, therefore, inclined to take the view that as in the case of a dying declaration or a confession, the Court should insist even in the case of Section 27 the same requirement that the prosecution must prove the "statement" ipsissma verba. Because, it belongs to the same genus. We say so because in such cases also it is the statement of a person who cannot be called as a witness and the case would be covered by Section 32(3). In such cases a "discovery' is made in the course of investigation as envisaged Under Section 162(2) Cr. P.C. as a result of information gathered by the police from accused's "statement" which will be hit by Section 162(1) except to the extent saved by the words "so much of such information" of Section 27. That apart the statement may partake the colour or character of a confession by the accused as indeed the section itself contemplates. The provision being contemplated by the legislature as an exception to Section 25 it is to be strictly construed therefore, to' fulfil the limited purpose and object which is sought to be achieved within the constitutional limitation. Fake "discoveries" are not contemplated; the authorship of the "discovery" must be attributed to the accused. The Court has a duty to discharge in this regard. The duty can be discharged if the entire statement, and particularly in the language of the accused, is proved. The Court has to satisfy itself of the truth and voluntariness of the "statement" to exclude possibility of violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Indeed, the Constitution Bench in M.P. Sharma took the view that only such situations are excepted from the purview of Article 20(3) which manifest that evidence was being collected without in any manner compelling the accused or asking him to be a party to the process. We would say this much only for the present as in the instant case no "statement" at all has been proved. After he was arrested the accused, as per I.O.'s deposition "led to the spot where the dead body was kept hidden." We have, therefore doubt if any 'statement' was at all recorded.
Gauhati High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Pintu Manna @ Paresh vs The State Of West Bengal on 13 February, 2012

This Court also examined the scope of a "discovery" u/s 27 in Moirangthem v. State of Manipur, 1984 CriLJ 536. Therein accused's categorical statement of his concealing the incriminating object at a particular place was held to be admissible. We have no doubt that, the mere discovery of any object would not be accepted 21 as an evidence against the accused unless the statement of the accused which led to the discovery was also proved. Indeed, this view was taken by this Court in Bhandagarh 1984 CriLJ 217 wherein the court held that proof of seizure list in respect of the object discovered pursuant to the information gathered from the statement of the accused will not render admissible evidence of seizure. We feel constrained to observe that the statement must, according to the language and also object of S.27." relate distinctly" to the object discovered and in connection therewith it can be proved conclusively if the exact statement or words used are proved. We are, therefore, inclined to take the view that as in the case of a dying declaration or a confession, the court should insist even in the Case of S.27 the same requirement that the prosecution must prove the "statement" ipsissma verba. Because, it belongs to the same genus. We say so because in such cases also it is the statement of a person who cannot be called as a witness and the case would be covered by S.32(3). In such cases a ""discovery" is made in the course of investigation (as envisaged u/s 162 (2) Cr.P.C.) as a result of information gathered by the Police from accused's "statement"
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G C Gupta - Full Document
1