Letter Given To Police Officer Admitting Guilt Hit by Section 25 Of Evidence Act, Not Admissible As Evidence: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, which had allowed a petition filed by the prosecution to receive two documents as additional documents, one of which was a letter admitting guilt given to the police. Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that any letter given to a police officer admitting guilt is hit by Section 25 of the Indian...
The Madras High Court has recently set aside an order of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, which had allowed a petition filed by the prosecution to receive two documents as additional documents, one of which was a letter admitting guilt given to the police.
Justice Nirmal Kumar noted that any letter given to a police officer admitting guilt is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court observed that in the present case, though it was said by the prosecution, it appeared that the letters were brought in only to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution, which could not be allowed.
“In any event, any letter given to a Police Officer admitting the guilt is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act....Though it is claimed that these two letters available earlier, neither listed as a document in the charge sheet nor any witnesses refers to these two letters. It is also seen that the case is at the penultimate stage. The reason given to file a petition to bring on record these two letters for the reason during cross examination PW14 discloses the same is nothing but to fill up the lacuna, which is not permissible. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court,” the court said.
As per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act (Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023), any confession made to a police officer is not proof of his guilt in connection with the offense.
The court was hearing a revision petition filed by R. Lalithsharma. Sharma had argued that he was falsely implicated by the defacto complainant. He informed the court that the complainant was running an Indigenous chit and was a money lender. He further said that he had approached the defacto complainant for his financial need and the complainant loaned him Rs. 1.85 Crore on the promise that he would be made a partner in petitioner's company. The petitioner had also given custody of 550 MT of steel angles and iron scrap to the complainant.
The complainant had lodged a complaint after coming to know that the materials were transferred to the godown of one Ganesan without his knowledge and that he was not made a partner in the petitioner's business proposal.
The chargesheet was filed and witnesses were examined. During the examination, the Investigating Officer who had conducted major part of the investigation deposed that the petitioner had given him a handwritten letter admitting guilt. The prosecution then filed a petition under Section 242(2) CrPC to receive the letter as an additional document which was allowed by the magistrate.
The petitioner contended that the letter was given to the Inspector after registration of the case and thus was inadmissible in evidence as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though the prosecution argued that marking the documents was necessary, the court agreed with the petitioner's submission.
The court was thus inclined to set aside the order of the Magistrate and allowed the criminal revision petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. A.Ashwin Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 353
Case Title: R Lalithsharma v State
Case No: Crl. R.C.No.243 of 2024