Binu George vs State Of Kerala on 12 March, 2009
In the decision reported in Chattar Singh v. State of
Haryana (AIR 2009 SC 378) it was held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 63 (1.75 seconds)Documents citing
Chattar Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 26 August, 2008
Rameshwar S/O Dinaji Dhawde (In Jail) vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 30 March, 2016
It could thus be seen that the Apex Court in clear terms has held that a
deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly proved, are
among the most effectual proofs in law. It has been further held that an
involuntary confession is one which is not the result of the free will of
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 10:59:34 :::
CRI.APPEAL NO.455.13.odt 13
the maker of it. It has been further held that where the statement is
made as a result of harassment and continuous interrogation for several
hours after the person is treated as an offender and accused, such
statement must be regarded as involuntary. It has further been held
that if the statement is extracted by promise, threat, then such a
confession would not be admissible in law. However, the Apex Court
held that every inducement, threat or promise does not vitiate a
confession. It has been held that the object of the rule is to exclude only
those confessions which are testimonially untrustworthy. The
inducement, threat or promise must be such as is calculated to lead to an
untrue confession. The Apex Court further held that the value of the
evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness,
who gives the evidence. It has been held that the trustworthiness of the
confession would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time
when the conviction was made and the credibility of the witnesses who
speak to such a conviction. It has been held that after subjecting the
evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of
credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the
basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.
Krishan Kumar vs The State Of Haryana on 8 August, 2023
In the decision in Chattar Singh and Anr. v. State
of Haryana11 this Court held that after subjecting the
evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the
touchstone of credibility the extra judicial confession
could be accepted and it could be the basis of a
conviction if it passes the touchstone of credibility.
Krishan Kumar vs The State Of Haryana on 8 August, 2023
In the decision in Chattar Singh and Anr. v. State
of Haryana11 this Court held that after subjecting the
evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the
touchstone of credibility the extra judicial confession
could be accepted and it could be the basis of a
conviction if it passes the touchstone of credibility.
Gova @ Govaji @ Dashrath Patel Nagjibhai ... vs State Of on 11 July, 2013
11. Learned APP has
submitted that as there was motive and there was an incident which
was occurred before one month and PW-1 & 2 is not believed. PW-5
before turning hostile, has stated that there was a marriage. The
accused and the deceased were seen together. The prosecution given
cogent reason that Ramesh Laxmanbhai was not examined and the
finding of the learned trial Judge cannot be disturbed. According to
the learned APP, there was no inducement to the accused to give a
statement before the learned trial Judge. Learned APP Mr. Pujari has
relied on the provisions of sec. 81 of the Evidence Act and has
relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chattar
Singh and Anr. vs. State of Haryana, reported in (2008)14 SCC 667.
It is very difficult for us to take a different view then that one
taken by the learned trial Judge as far as ori. Accused no. 1
Gova is concerned. From the evidence on record, it is very clear
that the accused was seen together, and there was a motive also.
Even if the evidence of defence witness examined by the accused no.
2 is brushed aside, all the antecedents factor clearly go to show
that Gova was last seen together with the deceased. The decision
cited by learned advocate Mr. Anandjiwala will not apply to the
facts of this case, more particularly, when there is a evidence
which has come on record.
Dr. Saleem Ur Rehman vs State Of Jk & Ors. on 7 May, 2018
26. Chattar Singh's (supra) case as relied upon by Mr. Rathore
is of no precedential value in terms of the submissions made by
Mr. Salih Pirzada, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a
distinction, inter alia, between Jammu & Kashmir Code of Criminal
Procedure, Svt. 1989 (1933 AD) and the Central Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 with respect to Section 155. Under the Indian
Cr.P.C. there is a fourth sub-clause to Section 155 which deems
offences to be cognizable where at least one amongst the offences
is cognizable and the rest non-cognizable.
Ernakulam vs By Adv. Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair on 1 February, 2021
23. On evaluating the evidence of PW1 to 5
the factum of presence of accused inside the
house and two dead bodies found inside the
house have been established as stated
earlier. The evidence of PW2 with regard to
the alleged confession statement given by the
accused also stands unchallenged. PW1 also
refers about the extra judicial confession
made by the accused. PW5 also stated about
Crl.A.815/2020
25
the extra judicial confession made by the
accused of causing the death of his wife and
daughter. That portion with respect to PW5 is
also marked as Ext.P5. During cross-
examination there was no attempt on the part
of the accused to challenge the extra
judicial confession made by the accused. The
extra judicial confession made by the accused
to PW1, PW2 and PW5 are proved to be
deliberate and voluntary confession of guilt
and such confession are held to be the most
effectual proof in law Chattar Singh &
Another v. State of Haryana (2009 KHC 4308:
CRL.A(J)/76/2015 on 29 October, 2021
It was as held in para No. 18 in Chattar Singh (supra) as follows,
Monika Bagchi vs The State Of West Bengal on 21 September, 2022
49. This appellant also relied upon the case of Chattar
Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana delaing with the
appreciation of evidence in cases based on circumstantial
evidence. The Hon'ble Court held that,
"The conditions precedent in the words of
this Court, before conviction could be based on
circumstantial evidence, must be fully
established. They are:
Rishabh Rawat vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 June, 2023
In support of the contention that an extra-judicial confession can be
relied upon by the court, learned APP has placed reliance on a
decision of the Supreme Court in Chattar Singh vs. State of
Haryana2, which cites another decision of the Supreme Court in State
of Rajasthan vs. Raja Ram3, to argue that extra-judicial confessions
can be employed to convict an accused if they are "...voluntary and
true and made in a fit state of mind ". Moreover, their value would be
determined by "...the nature of the circumstances, the time when
the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who
speak to such a confession."