Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.38 seconds)
State vs Paramasivam cites

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hari Mohan And Ors. on 17 January, 1976

In this regard, Judgments of Supreme Court in "(1) Balkishan A. Devidayal V. State of Maharashtra (2) State of Madhya Pradesh and another V. Hari and others" reported in 1980 CRL.L.J.1424 can be noticed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in clear terms, has held that the Sub Inspector of Police in the Railway Protection Force, who conducts enquiry under section 8 of the railway property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966, is not a police officer and that a person arrested under section 6 of the Railway Act is not to be construed as a person accused of an offence under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and hence the incriminating statements made by him during enquiry under section 8 of the said Act is not protected under the Article 20(3) of the constitution of India. Therefore the statements of the above said witnesses recorded by P.W.1 during the course of enquiry conducted by him are admissible for the purposes mentioned in sections 145 and 157 of the Evidence Act. They have been used by the appellant/complainant to corroborate the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6. Similarly the confession statement of the respondent himself, which has been marked as Ex.P5, has clearly supported the prosecution case. This court is able to find no material contradiction in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. Ex.P5, produced as the confession statement of the respondent herein(Accused in this case) is not hit by Article 20(3) of the constitution of India since PW1, who recorded the statement could not be construed to be a police officer as he did not have the power to submit a final report after conducting an investigation. Cognigance of the offence has been made on a complaint before the Magistrate. It was so done at a later part of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment cited Supra has cited it is one of the reasons for holding the statement of a person arrested by Railway Protection Force during the course of enquiry under section 6 of the Railway Act was not a statement of a person accused of an offence and such a statement was not hit by the mischief of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Therefore Ex.P5 confession statement of the respondent herein becomes a substantive evidence. P.W.4 has corroborated the contents on Ex.P5. regarding the fact that the respondent was a tenant of the premises from which M.Os. 3 to 9 were recovered. In fact P.W.4's father was the landlord and he died prior to the occurrence and there upon P.W.4, his brothers and his sisters became the landlords.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 177 - Full Document
1   2 Next