Dismissed

Kura Devender , Amar, v. sub- Inspector of Police Sircilla

Telangana HC2 Apr 2012CRLP/1859/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the plea to quash FIR No. 130 of 2008. The court held that while a confessional statement is inadmissible evidence, it serves as information justifying police investigation under Section 154 Cr.P.C. There are no grounds to quash proceedings at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No.1859 of 2009 is dismissed.

Kura Devender , Amar, Vs sub- Inspector of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1859 OF 2009

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No.130 of 2008, dated 15.04.2008, of Sircilla Police Station.

¶5

2. It is alleged that after taking the petitioner into custody on 15.04.2008, Sub Inspector produced him before the Station House Officer, Sircilla Police Station; that the Station House Officer summoned for mediators; that he allegedly gave a confession stating that he along with others was making preparation to wage war and over throw the Government by collecting huge quantity of arms, ammunition and explosives in furtherance of their ideology of intensifying armed struggle for achieving socialism only through the barrel of gun. In pursuance of conspiracy and resolutions passed by the Central Committee in the year 2003, the petitioner and others were responsible for the attacks on police, public representatives, political leaders, businessmen etc. It is also alleged that he along with some others destroyed the public properties i.e., Telephone Exchanges, M.R.O., M.D.O. offices; that on 11.02.2003, they killed two Police Constables at Vattimalla Village of Konaraopet Police Station; that as per their resolutions, the armed squads attacked and killed the political leaders to create political instability in the country; that they also killed several innocent people stamping them as police informers; that basing on the same, police registered a case under Sections 120-B, 121, 122-A, 153 (a), 302, 307, 436 and 427 I.P.C., Sections 3 and 5 of E.S.Act and Sections 25, 27 and 35 of Indian Arms Act.

¶6

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the alleged statement of the petitioner is in the nature of confession and it cannot be used as an evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Act’); that therefore, the statement given by the accused in the custody of the police cannot be

¶7

used as an evidence against him, and hence, he prays to quash the proceedings.

¶8

4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that basing on the information received by the police, the case was registered; that under Section 154 Cr.P.C., any information received from any person which contains cognizable offence has to be registered and investigated into by police; that when it is a statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation, that duty cannot be curtailed in any manner; and hence, he prays to dismiss the quash petition.

¶9

5. Under Section 154 Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the police to investigate a cognizable offence as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the confessional statement of the accused. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the confession given by the accused while he was in the custody of the police is not at all evidence and it cannot be taken as a basis for conviction, but at the same time, it can be taken as information given by a person with regard to the commission of cognizable offence.

¶10

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision

¶11

reported in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Biha r^[1] , wherein it is held at para No.13 as follows:

¶12

“Now, a confession may consist of several parts and may reveal not only the actual commission of the crime but also the motive, the preparation, the opportunity, the provocation the weapons used, the intention, the concealment of the weapon and the subsequent conduct of the accused. If the confession is tainted the taint attaches to each part of it. It is not permissible in law to separate one part and to admit it in evidence as a non-confessional statement. Each part discloses some incriminating fact, i.e., some fact which by itself or along with other admitted or proved facts suggests the inference that the accused committed the crime, and though each part taken singly may not amount to a confession, each of them being part of a confessional statement partakes of the character of a confession. If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an incriminating fact contained in the statement is part of the confession.”

¶13

From the above decision, it is clear that if the confessional statement given by any person is in the nature of confession, it is not admissible under law. What is confession has not been defined under the Act. For the first time, the confession has been defined in Pakala Narayan Swami v. The King Emperor (AIR 1939, P.C. 47), which reads that the confession is a statement given by an accused admitting his guilt or all facts constituting an offence. Therefore, the confession given by the accused may not be itself an evidence and it is inadmissible in view of Section 25 of the Act. But, if the statement given by the accused is in the nature of an information with regard to the commission of cognizable offence, then, it is the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation. The statement given by the petitioner can be treated as an information given by him. Absolutely, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage, 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

¶14

8. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition shall stand dismissed.

¶15

__________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Date: 02.04.2012 Hsd

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1859 OF 2009

¶18

Dated: 02^nd April, 2012

¶19

Hsd

¶20

[1] AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 119

Kura Devender , Amar, v. sub- Inspector of Police Sircilla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kura Devender , Amar, v. sub- Inspector of Police Sircilla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Mohan Vs Dr.T.Laxminarayana

N.Sudarshan Reddy, Vs Anand M.Shah

M/s. Dayal Corporation, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Madan Mohan Reddy Vs The State of A.P.

P.Vara Vara Rao, Vs The State of A.P.

K. Jayarajan Vs v. Hemanth