Confession Made In Police Custody Cannot Be Relied On To Hold Accused Guilty: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court while directing to release an accused convicted for dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity on the basis of extra-judicial confession, observed that confession made in police custody cannot be relied to hold the accused guilty.

Justice Pankaj Jain relying on the landmark decision of Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar [(1966) 1 SCR 134] said, "confession made by accused in police custody cannot be relied upon to hold appellant guilty."

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Navdeep and Sudhir convicted by the Trial Court under Section 412 IPC (dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity) and sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment.

According to the prosecution both the accused persons were involved in the alleged looting of a car at gunpoint involving four accused persons including the appellant.

After some time, the car was apprehended which was being driven by appellant-Sudhir. The car was without a number plate. Sudhir was arrested and interrogated. During the investigation, he named Navdeep @ Chotu as the source of the car, it added.

Counsel for the appellants asserted that the Trial Court had totally misdirected itself in relying upon the extra-judicial confessions alleged to have been made by Sudhir and Navdeep.

He submitted that though as per the prosecution, recovery has been effected from Sudhir, there is no cogent piece of evidence to show the involvement of Navdeep apart from the disclosure statements while in police custody which are apparently hit by provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Act.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the precise allegation by the complainant whose car was allegedly looted is that he was robbed of the same by 04 young boys at pistol point. "The question is whether robbery committed by 04 persons falls within the ambit of 'dacoity'", it added.

Perusing Sections 391 (Dacoity) and 412 (Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity) of IPC, the Court noted that, 

"In order to attract offence of dacoity as adumbrated under Section 391 of the Code, the essential ingredient is commission of robbery by 05 or more persons conjointly. In order to constitute offence punishable under Section 412, it is quite essential that the proceeds must be result of dacoity."

Justice Jain highlighted that "The property i.e. car was snatched at the gunpoint by 04 persons involved can also not be said to be members of the gang of dacoits."

As a result, the Court found that the conviction of the appellants under Section 412 IPC can be maintained. The appeal qua appellant No.2 Sudhir is thus allowed to the extent that his conviction is altered qua offence punishable under Section 412 IPC to the one qua offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. Sudhir is resultantly held guilty of offence punishable under Section 411 (Dishonestly receiving stolen property) IPC, it said.

The Court further considered the question, of whether a confession made by the accused while in police custody can be relied upon as with respect to Navdeep, apart from the disclosures made in the present case by both the accused while in police custody, there is no other incriminating evidence against him. It observed:

"Answer is in the provision contained under Section 25 of the Evidence Act which reads as under:- Confession to police officer not to be proved.- No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”

In light of the above, the Court said the confession made by the accused in police custody cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty.

"Keeping in view that the appellant-Navdeep @ Chotu has also undergone actual custody of 03 years, he is ordered to be released for offence undergone the same," it directed.

Mr. Madhur Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. R.K. Ambavta, AAG, Haryana.

Navdeep @ Chhotu and another v. State of Haryana

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 229

 Click here to read/download the order