Cooperation With Investigation Doesn't Mean Accused Should Confess To Crime : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has reiterated that cooperation with the investigation does not mean that the accused must confess to the investigating officer.

"We are of the firm opinion that non-cooperation by the accused is one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime is another. There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation," the Court observed.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta made these crucial observations in a judgment holding a police inspector and a magistrate guilty of contempt of court for the arrest and remand of an accused in violation of the interim anticipatory bail order passed by the Supreme Court.

During the hearing, the magistrate raised an argument that the custody remand of the accused was sought by the police as he was not "cooperating" with the investigation. It was in this context that the judgment made the above observations.

"The 6th ACJM(contemnor-respondent No.7) has laid much stress in her affidavit upon the fact that the Investigating Officer had noted in his application that the accused-petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation. We fail to comprehend as to what could be construed to be cooperation in a criminal case based on allegations which prima facie appear to be in relation to a civil dispute," the Court commented.

The Court pointed out that any confession made by the accused before a police officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot even form a part of the record.

In this regard, reference was also made to the recent order passed in Sanju Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh that confessional statements cannot be made part of the chargesheet.

Related - Cooperating With Investigation Doesn't Mean Accused Is Expected To Make Self Incriminating Statements : Supreme Court