In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has underscored the unreliability of confessions made in police custody, emphasizing the legal protections against such admissions under the Indian Evidence Act. The judgment was delivered by Justice Pankaj Jain in the case of Navdeep @ Chhotu and another v. State of Haryana (CRA-S No. 3154 of 2023).
Background of the Case
The appellants, Navdeep @ Chhotu and Sudhir, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, on January 10, 2023, under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity. They were sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 10,000 each. The case originated from FIR No. 167 dated September 1, 2020, which alleged that a Swift Dzire car, a proceed of robbery, was in the possession of the accused.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was the admissibility of confessions made by the accused while in police custody. The defense argued that the trial court erred in relying on these confessions, which are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. These sections categorically state that any confession made to a police officer or while in police custody cannot be used as evidence against the accused.
Court’s Decision
Justice Pankaj Jain meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and relevant case law, including the landmark judgments in State of U.P. vs. Deomon Upadhyaya and Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar. The court reiterated that:
> “No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence” (Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act).
The court found that the trial court had indeed misdirected itself by relying on the extra-judicial confessions made by the appellants while in police custody. Justice Jain observed:
> “Apart from the disclosures made by the co-accused while in police custody, there is no other incriminating evidence against Navdeep.”
Key Observations
The court highlighted the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of dacoity under Section 391 IPC, which necessitates the involvement of five or more persons. In this case, the robbery was committed by only four individuals, thus not meeting the criteria for dacoity. Consequently, the court held:
> “The offence as alleged under FIR No. 306 does not constitute the offence of dacoity as defined under Section 391 of the Code.”
The court allowed the appeal in part. The conviction of Sudhir was altered from Section 412 IPC to Section 411 IPC (dishonestly receiving stolen property), and he was held guilty under the latter provision. As for Navdeep @ Chhotu, the court found no other incriminating evidence apart from the inadmissible confessions and ordered his release, noting that he had already undergone three years of actual custody.
Also Read
Lawyers Involved:
– For the Appellants: Mr. Madhur Singh
– For the Respondent (State of Haryana): Mr. R.K. Ambavta, AAG, Haryana
