Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.13 seconds)
Documents citing Devendra Prasad Tiwari vs State Of U.P. on 29 August, 1978

Hopeson Ningshen vs C B I on 20 November, 2019

In Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P. (1978) 4 SCC 474 the following conclusion arrived at by this Court is relevant: (SCC p. 479, para 13) "13. ... It is also true that before a confessional statement made under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be acted upon, it must be shown to be voluntary and free from police influence and that the confessional statement made by the appellant in the instant case cannot be taken into account, as it suffers from serious infirmities in that (1) there is no contemporaneous record to show that the appellant was actually kept in jail as ordered on 6-9-1974 by Shri R.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, (2) Shri R.P. Singh who recorded the so-called confessional statement of the appellant did not question him as to why he was making the confession, and (3) there is also nothing in the statement of the said Magistrate to show that he told the appellant that he would not be remanded to the police lock-up even if he did not confess his guilt. It cannot also be gainsaid that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused." .......
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - G S Sistani - Full Document

State Of West Bengal vs Saiful Ali & Ors on 6 October, 2023

77. Davendra Prasad Tiwari vs. State of U.P.6 is also distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the Magistrate had assured the accused that he would not be remanded to police lockup if he did not make the confession. Reason for the appellant making the confession is also evident from the tenor of his confession. In his confession he stated that 'something got into him' and he committed the crime. Naturally he felt remorse and confessed. Materials on record show the appellant had been remanded to judicial custody and was sent for reflection till the next day. Mere identification by a police officer prior to recording of confession cannot be a ground to hold that the judicial remand had not been followed in practice. Non-examination of SI Apurba Mondal who identified Saiful before Magistrate also does not affect the prosecution case. P.W. 31 during cross-examination clarified the role of the said police officer. His examination is not necessary for 6 (1978) 4 SCC 474 45 unfolding of the prosecution case. However, it was open to the defence to make a prayer before the trial Court to summon the said police officer under section 311 Cr.P.C. if it thought fit and proper. The defence did not take recourse to such action. Under such circumstances, it cannot be argued that non-examination of the said police officer would lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution case.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - J Bagchi - Full Document

Rehmat Khan And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 September, 1985

In Davendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh there was nothing on record to show that the Magistrate told the appellant that he would not be remanded to the police custody even if he did not confess his guilt. The confession was discarded on the ground that it was not made voluntarily because the accused was not assured that he would not be delivered to the police custody. Here in the instant case, the situation is still worse than it was before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In the instant case, accused Allahuddin was not only not assured that he would not be delivered back to the police custody but in fact he was delivered to the police custody after bis statement Ex. P. 31 was recorded. Ex. P. 31, even if it amounts to a confession, should, therefore, be excluded from consideration.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Surodhani Roy @ Sumitra Roy vs State Of West Bengal on 29 April, 2004

13. Mr. Bhattacharyya also pointed out that the alleged recovery of the grinding stone at the instance of the accused Surodhani is not to be relied upon inasmuch as there is nothing on record to show or indicate that the said recovery was on the basis of the statement made by accused Surodhani within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Mr. Bhattacharyya further contended that confessional statement as recorded by the learned Magistrate (PW. 5) cannot be construed to be voluntarily made inasmuch as all the requirement of Section 164 of the Code were not taken care of. In this context he placed reliance in the decision of Devendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, , Chandran v. State of Madras, , Shivappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1995 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 323, Tulsi Singh v. State of Punjab, , Preetam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1996 SC W 3829.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raghunath Dey And Etc. vs The State on 20 August, 2003

23. Much was argued on behalf of the appellants on the confessional statement of the accused Santu recorded by the Magistrate. It is to be noted that the trial Court did not place any reliance on the said confessional statement inasmuch as the PW 6 who actually recorded the statement was not confronted with the said statement. The defence did not get any opportunity to cross-examine the PW 6 on it. Moreover the ld. counsel for the appellants rightly argued placing reliance on the decisions (Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh), 1991 Cal Cri LR 121 (State v. Prosenjit Tapadar) and (Shivappa v. State of Karnataka) that the confessional statement of the accused Santu cannot be treated as a voluntary statement. It is nowhere indicated in the report that the Magistrate told the accused that he would not be remanded to the police lock-up even if he did not confess his guilt. It is also not indicated in the report of the Magistrate that the accused was actually kept in Jail Custody in segregation in terms of the order passed and that before production of the accused before the Magistrate, he was not given in the clutches of the police. So it appears that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Section 164 as well as the Rules and Guidelines framed in this regard and accordingly, the said confession was unworthy of credence. The ld. Sessions Judge rightly discussed this issue and did not place any reliance on such statement. It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that the alleged fire on Tinku is not to be construed as the intentional murder inasmuch as there was no evidence that to stop that victim, any of the. miscreants fired on him. An attempt was made to argue that it was merely an accidental firing without any intention to commit a murder and as such, all the accused persons including the appellants should not be found guilty under Section 396 of the Code.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jayanti Bhattacharya And Etc. vs State Of West Bengal on 14 June, 2006

27. Mr. Basu contends that by several judicial pronouncement, guidelines have been provided for the learned Magistrates how to record a confessional statement and one such guideline relates to giving proper caution to the accused deponent before recording his confession, because, undoubtedly a conviction order can be passed solely on the confessional statement of an accused and for that reason, the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again insisted strict compliance of the guidelines in the matter of recording of a confessional statement and one of such guideline is to inform the deponent before recording his confessional statement that he would not be remanded to police custody even if he makes statement or declined to make the same. Another important guideline is to obtain an explanation from the deponent accused as to why he wants to make a confessional statement although such a statement may be used against him for sustaining an order of conviction. Mr. Basu submits that the above guidelines find support from the decision of Bebendra Prasad Tewari v. The State of U.P. and the ratio of that decision was followed in the case of State v. Prasenjit Tapadar reported in 1991 (1) CHN page 331.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kuthu Goala vs The State Of Assam on 6 May, 1980

15. It is true, whether the confession was made voluntarily or not is a question of fact, and the appellate Court would be slow to interfere with such a finding unless the Court itself is satisfied that the impugned finding has been reached without complying with the true and legal test in the matter. In this case, the Magistrate has not put any pointed and searching question to the accused to ensure that the confession was made voluntarily. No doubt the Magistrate asked the accused about the date of arrest and the period of detention in the police custody but the Magistrate has not asked him as to how he was treated in the police custody. The Magistrate also did not question the accused as to why he was making the confession and there was nothing in the statement of the Magistrate from the questions on record to show that he told the accused that he would not be remanded to the police later on even if he did not confess his guilt. Such questions by the nature of the circumstances are pertinent and important. See Devendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh .
Gauhati High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Madan Lal on 24 June, 1999

Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1544;(1978 Cri LJ 1614), Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 190: (1978 Cri LJ 1869), State of Maharashtra v. Annappa Bandu Kavtage AIR 1979 SC 1410: (1979 Cri LJ 1089), Gambhir v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1982 SC 1157 : (1982 Cri LJ 1243), Jagan Nath v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1982 Cri LJ 2289, State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh AIR 1975 SC 258 :(1975 Cri LJ 282)and Laxman v State of Orissa 1995 Cri LJ 2692 : (AIR 1995 SC 1387).
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Pralhad Dyanoba Gajbhiye vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 January, 1996

He again relied on the judgments reported in 1990 Cri LJ 385 (Punj & Har), Hari Kishan v. State of Haryana, that presence of police officers outside Court room when confession is being recorded, is not reliable confession is being recorded, is not reliable confession as it cannot be said to be voluntary and genuine, and also 1991 Cri LJ 269 (Orissa), Govinda Pradhan v. State, that time of 5 to 10 minutes for reflection cannot be sufficient and further on the decision : Davendra Prasad Tiwari v. State of U.P., that there is no record to show that the accused was sent to jail. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no statutory provision that the Judicial Magistrate should record the preliminary questioning, of the accused before recording the statement. The Judicial Magistrate has deposed in Court that he has made preliminary inquiry with the accused. It is true that P.W. 6 has deposed that he made preliminary inquiry but as we have observed earlier, the time of 15 to 20 minutes for reflection is not sufficient and, therefore, the evidence of P.W. 6 is not of any consequence. Considering the evidence of confession as deposed by P.W. 6, in our view, it is not admissible in evidence. Moreover, it is not reliable and dependable to accept the same as the voluntary statement of the accused.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S P Kulkarni - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next