Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (1.49 seconds)
State vs . Anand on 11 July, 2014 cites

Chinna Gowda vs State Of Mysore on 27 April, 1962

L.J. 2008 ( All ), it was held that the statements recorded by the officers of the RPF during the investigation do not attract the provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. In Chinna Vs. State, (1977) 2 Karn LJ 480, it was held that the statements recorded by an officer of the RPF in the course of inquiry can be read in evidence. This makes it all the more necessary for the court to cautiously evaluate the confessional statement purportedly made by an accused to an officer of the RPF soon after his arrest. The court will have to be satisfied that the statements was voluntary. Otherwise, it will be a denial of a just, fair and reasonable procedure and constitute a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as well. The voluntariness of the statement will have to be tested on a case by case basis and evaluated in light of the attendant circumstances of each case. Where there are no public witnesses associated, or where, as in the present case, all the RPF officers stated to have been present at the time of arrest do not sign the confessional statement, or where, as in the present case, the entries mandatorily required to be made in the registers maintained under the RPF Rules as regards the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the railway property are not proved by producing the original registers, if would be unsafe for the Court to proceed to convict the Respondent only on the basis of his confessional statement".
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next