Latest Update

14th January, 2018

Constitution  of India, Article 20(3) - Confessional statement  - Self­-incriminatory evidence - Recovery of material objects  - Once a confessional statement of the accused on facts is found to be involuntary, it is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, rendering such a confession inadmissible - There is an embargo on accepting self­-incriminatory evidence, but if it leads to the recovery of material objects in relation to a crime, it is most often taken to hold evidentiary value as per the circumstances of each case - However, if such a statement is made under undue pressure and compulsion from the investigating officer, the evidentiary value of such a statement leading to the recovery is nullified -  Recovery of incriminating material at the instance of the accused – Confessions  - Investigating Officer deposed that all the confessions by the accused persons were made after interrogation, but the mode of this interrogation does not appear to be of normal character, inasmuch as he himself has deposed that the accused persons were further grilled and interrogated multiple times before extracting the confessions which lead to the recovery of the ornaments, cash, weapons and key -  We find the confessions that led to the recovery of the incriminating material were not voluntary, but caused by inducement, pressure or coercion  - Recovery of the stolen ornaments, etc. in the instant matter was made on the basis of involuntary statements, which effectively negates the incriminating circumstance based on such recovery, and severely undermines the prosecution case - Evidence Act, Section 27.. 2019 SCeJ 89

PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 Annual subscription Rs. 2800/- (2019)

punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502

 PLR Supreme Court e@journal

  Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-

4-5 UPDATES A WEEK   / Full text with Headnotes through email / WhatsApp

 FREE with Punjab Law Reporter Subscription. 

  • Constitution of India, Article 20(2)  - Cr.P.C., Section 300  - The whole basis of Section 300 (1) Cr.P.C. is that the person who was tried by a competent court, once acquitted or convicted, cannot be tried for the same offence – First charge sheet filed under Section 13(1)(c)(d)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Special Court, PC Act discharged the accused/respondent from the charges levelled against him due to lack of proper sanction - Fresh sanction granted by the Governor  - Fresh/supplementary charge sheet along with fresh prosecution sanction against the accused/respondent dismissed by the Special Court holding that there is no provision/scope for review of its own order under Criminal Procedure Code and that it is barred by the principles of “double jeopardy” -  In the case in hand, the respondent/accused has not been tried nor was there a full-fledged trial - On the other hand, the first order of discharge passed by the Special Court was only due to invalidity attached to the prosecution - When the respondent/accused was so discharged due to lack of proper sanction, the principles of “double jeopardy” will not apply. 

    (2018)2 SCeJ 1588

  •         Constitution of India, Art.  20(3) - Privilege is applicable only to testimonial evidence - Right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort testimonial evidence from parties, not an exclusion of evidence taken from the body when it may be material and thus, the court can compel a person male or female to submit for DNA test since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on testimonial compulsion. (174) PLR 

PLR Supreme Court e@journal

 Annual subscription Rs. 1000/-

5 UPDATES A WEEK  

Full text with Headnotes through

email / WhatsApp

 

FREE with

PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

 Annual subscription Rs. 2400/- (2018)

punjablawreporter@gmail.com / 9463598502