Additional Sections And Case Laws:

160. Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.

(1)Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in
writing require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits
of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise,
appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such
person shall attend as so required :Provided that no male person [under the age of
fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years or a woman or a mentally or
physically disabled person] [Substituted for the words "under the age of fifteen
years or woman" by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013] shall be required to
attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman
resides.(2)The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the
payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending
under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.

Case: Nandhini Satpathy case

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (AIR 1978 SC 1025) was a landmark case in Indian
legal history concerning the right against self-incrimination. The case involved
corruption charges against Nandini Satpathy, the former Chief Minister of Odisha,
for misusing her position while in office.

Nandini Satpathy was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for
allegedly misusing her position and obtaining pecuniary advantages by improperly
allotting a plot of land in Cuttack valued at Rs. 24 lakhs to one Prafulla Kumar
Rath. She was asked to appear before the Vigilance Police for questioning
regarding these allegations.

Supreme Court’s Judgment and and Its Implications

The Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment in this case on July 20, 1978.
Chief Justice M.H. Beg authored the unanimous decision.

The Supreme Court’s Interpretation of Article 20(3)

The Court held that the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the
Constitution is available during trial and even at the investigation stage. Thus, the
accused cannot be compelled to answer incriminating questions during police
interrogation. The judges opined that the spirit behind Article 20(3) implies that an
accused should not provide materials from which inferences can be drawn that
could lead to their incrimination.
The Court clarified that while voluntary answers during interrogation are
permissible, forcing the accused to answer questions or extract information under
compulsion, threat, or promise is impermissible. This significantly strengthened
the right against self-incrimination in India.

Impact on Section 161(1) and 179 IPC

The Court held that Section 161(1) CrPC and Section 179 IPC could not override
the protections guaranteed under Article 20(3). While these provisions allow the
compulsion of the accused during interrogation, they cannot compel self-
incriminating testimony that violates Article 20(3).
Thus, the Court made it clear that the right against self-incrimination would prevail
over statutory provisions like Section 161(1) and 179 to the extent they contradict
Article 20(3). This marked a significant development in constitutional
jurisprudence in India.

ARTICLE 20(3) COI RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT

20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences

(1)No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in
force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be
subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the
law in force at the time of the commission of the offence.

(2)No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than
once

.(3)No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against

himself.Editorial Comment - Article 20 of the Indian Constitution safeguards
certain rights in criminal proceedings. It provides protection against self-
incrimination, double jeopardy, and retrospective punishment.

Additional:
Article 20(1) prohibits the imposition of retrospective punishment. It states that no
person shall be punished for an act that was not an offense at the time it was
committed. This provision ensures that individuals cannot be held accountable for
actions that were legal when they occurred but were later made illegal by
subsequent legislation.

In the landmark judgment, Kedar Nath v. State of West Bengal the Supreme Court
held that when an act is declared a criminal offense by the legislature and provides
penalties for it, such declaration is always prospective and cannot be applied
retrospectively as per the provisions of Article 20(1)

However, it is important to note that this clause prohibits only the procedure of
sentencing and convicting, not the trial itself. Therefore, a person accused under a
particular procedure cannot claim protection under this clause or the doctrine of ex
post facto law.

Article 20(2) prohibits a person from being prosecuted and punished for the same
offense more than once. This principle of double jeopardy prevents individuals
from being subjected to multiple trials or punishments for the same offense. Once a
person has been acquitted or convicted and punished for a particular offense, they
cannot be tried or punished again for the same offense.

Article 20(3) ensures that no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be

a witness against themselves. This means that an individual cannot be forced to
provide evidence or testimony that may incriminate themselves. It is a fundamental
right that protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses in their own
criminal prosecution.

Prohibition against self-incrimination could only be put into effect if the person is
accused of a criminal offence. This doctrine could not be invoked for cases other
than criminal cases. Also, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raja
Narayanlal Bansilal vs Maneck Phiroz Mistry, to claim the immunity from being
self-incriminated, there must exist a formal accusation against the person and mere
general inquiry and investigation don’t form grounds for the same.
These safeguards provided under Article 20 are essential components of a fair and
just legal system. They uphold the principles of fairness, protection against self-
incrimination, and the prevention of arbitrary or excessive punishment. It's
important to note that these protections are applicable in criminal proceedings and
serve as a shield against certain violations of individual rights. However,
reasonable restrictions and limitations can be imposed in the interests of public
order, security of the State, or the proper administration of justice.

162. Statements to police not to be signed : Use of statements in evidence.

(1)No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an
investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the
person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a
police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement of record, be used for any
purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial in respect of any
offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made :Provided
that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose
statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if
duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by
the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement
is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness,
but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-
examination.(2)Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement
falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.Explanation. -
An omission to state a fact or circumstances in the statement referred to in sub-
section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and
otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and
whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be
a question of fact.

CASE: RHEA CHAKRABORTY—statements to NCB admissible

But statements made to police not admissible

Case: Aghnoo Nagesia

Exception: recoveries

Issues raised before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the entire portion of a confession to a police officer is

inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
2. Whether a portion of the confession can be admissible and a portion can
be non-admissible ?
3. How can the exception given under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, related to confession be treated?
This case is one of the landmark cases in analysing the importance and
relevance of confession in a judicial trial. A confession arises out of guilt
over a crime. This might occur as soon as the crime is committed or
sometime later. The confession may be self-motivated or motivated by some
other person. Before analysing the characteristics of confession, it is
paramount to understand the concept of confession. A confession, as defined
earlier, is a self-exculpatory or inculpatory statement given by the accused.
Unlike other statements, which can be given by any person during any stage
of the investigation or trial, a confession can be given by the accused to the
officer involved or to the judicial magistrate. Confession is classified as a
type of admission.

From a psychological point of view, confession denotes the possession of

conscience, though it comes after the occurrence of a crime. From a legal
standpoint, confessing to a crime can possibly reduce the penal
repercussions. It is not a guarantee, but a possibility. The Indian legal system
has various auxiliary clauses with regard to confession. It is a wide arena
with a vague interpretation. The admissibility of such confessions varies
from one case to another. In the Indian Evidence Act, admissions are defined
and elaborated under Sections 17-31. According to Indian law, the only
acceptable mode of confession is the confession made before the judicial
magistrate under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. But no
confession can be taken as conclusive proof, rather, it is used only as an
estoppel.

The mode of confession that is completely prohibited is confession to a

police officer under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Also,
when a confession is given to the investigating officer, Section 27 of the Act
makes guidelines on how much information can be proved and also from
whom such information can be received. The reason why confession to
police officers is not allowed is that there is an opportunity of threat or offer
made to the accused to confess to a crime. It is highlighted in Section 163 of
the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. It
is also explicitly mentioned that, in no case, a signature is attested on a self-
made confession under Section 162 of the CrPC. Even after obtaining a
confession, the investigating officer has to go leaps and bounds to collect
corroborating facts that follow up as evidence to frame the charges without
using the information from the confession.

In this case, a person named Aghnoo Nageshia, due to a property dispute and
a consecutive intermittent quarrel with her aunt Ratni, kills her and three
others (daughter, son-in-law, and grandson). Following the murder, he hides
their bodies at the respective murder sites. These murders were due to the
emotional outrage and effects of the loss of property. After committing such
heinous murders, the accused, Mr. Aghnoo, shared the crime he committed
against his brother. Then, by evening, the accused reaches the nearby police
station and confesses about the murder to the sub-inspector of Police. On
receiving such information, the police officer recorded the statement and
asked the accused to affix his thumb print. Consequently, along with the
accused, the sub-inspector went to the murder site and found the bodies
lying lynched. All the bodies were recovered along with the murder weapon
based on the information obtained from the confession. The confession
became an indispensable tool to obtain all recoveries related to the crime.

The police filed an FIR, conducted a preliminary enquiry based on that

information, and found the blood-stained sheets used to cover the dead
bodies. Furthermore, by means of a medical examination, police linked the
blood type of the victim to the blood on the murder weapon. The police
obtained a statement from a witness who saw the accused leaving for the
forest, where the murder occurred and where the dead body of the son-in-
law of Ratni was found. The eye witness was added as a prosecution
witness. After linking and corroborating all facts discovered to the
confession statement, the police took up the trial. The accused was given a
death sentence by both the Sessions Court and the Honourable High Court of
Patna. At this hour, as a last resort, the accused, with the assistance of his
pleader, K.K. Jain, went to the Honourable Supreme Court.

The Court came to the conclusion that no confession to a police officer is

admissible as evidence, and no part of it can be used to prove other relevant
facts. The court acquitted the accused of all charges and cleared off his death
penalty.

Legal Background:

The Constitution of India guarantees every citizen of India that no person

shall be compelled to be a witness against himself under Article 20(3). This
right is guaranteed to every citizen, keeping in mind that he should not be
strangled with pressure to accept a crime that he or she is not a part of. This
view is also supported by various precedents from the Supreme Court. In the
case of Kathi Kalgu Oghad v. State of Bombay, (1961), the court held that no
violation of Article 20(3) is allowed by means of signature, thumb
impression, or any form of authentication. Also, in the case of Nandini
Satpathy v. Dani, (1978), the constitutional validity of Article 20(3) is held.
These case laws ensure that confession to a crime should not be obtained
forcefully, and that is why confession to police officers is prohibited under
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In the case of State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sidhu (2005), the court
recorded that Section 164 of CrPc and Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act
are major statutory tools to prevent unnatural confession. This is to avoid
any threat, offer, influence, or panic that may be caused by the investigating
officer to the person accused and obtain his or her confession
Case: Nirbhaya (Dying Declaration)

Exception: death bed statement

Dying Declaration is defined in Section 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence Act

When the statement is made by the person as the cause of his death, or as any of
the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his loss of life, in cases in
which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements made
by the person are relevant whether the person who made them was alive or was
not, at the time when they were made, under the expectation of death, and
whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death
comes into question.

Thus, it is the statement made by the person who is going to die, and that statement
will be considered as evidence in court, how his death caused and who is the
mugger. There are many conditions that relied upon the dying declaration that it
should be in an adequate manner as dying declaration is the weapon who convicted
the accused and stood as strong evidence.

The statement made by the deceased person will be treated as Evidence and
Admissible in a Court of law. The reason behind this can be followed by Latin
maxim Nemo Mariturus Presumuntur Mentri which means that “Man Will Not
Meet His Maker With Lying On His Mouth.” More precisely in our Indian law,
it is the fact that the dying man can never lie or Truth sits on the lips of dying man.
Hence, the Dying Declaration is Admissible and considered as Evidence in Court,
and can be used as a weapon to punish the culprit.

Nirbhaya’s Rape Case, Dying Declaration was made by her in the form of sign
and gesture. Thus, Dying declaration made through signs, gestures or by nods are
also admissible as evidence.

Case: venkateshwaralu - child rape

Exception: recoveries

Accused acquitted

All forensic evidence lost because of time delay

Issue: . This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated
20/10/2009 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Appeal
No.1037 of 2001 whereby the High Court has reversed the judgment and order of
the Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalguda acquitting the appellant of the offence
punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). The
High Court has sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of one month.

S.164 CrPC talks about the statements recorded by Magistrate: Sub Section (1)
authorizes the Magistrate to record the statement of a person or his confession, no
matter whether he possess jurisdiction in the case. If he does not possess such
jurisdiction sub-section (6) will apply.

Best bakery case/zahira sheik -try for perjury- repeatedly changing the
statement made under oath

The Best Bakery case (also called the Tulsi Bakery case) was a legal
case involving the burning down of the Best Bakery, on 1 March 2002. During the
incident, mob targeted the Sheikh family who ran the bakery and had taken refuge
inside, resulting in the deaths of fourteen people (11 Muslims including family
members and 3 Hindu employees of the bakery). All the 21 accused
were acquitted by the court due to shoddy police work and issues with evidence.
This attack was part of the 2002 Gujarat riots. The police recorded complaints in
a defective manner, failed to collect witnesses' statements as well as corroborative
evidence and did not investigate the responsibility of eminent suspects. The Best
Bakery case was seen by human rights organizations in India as a test case given
that what Amnesty calls "strong evidence" against the accused existed

Hearsay evidence and perjury

This case is the apt example of hearsay evidence and perjury by Zaheera Sheikh.
Hearsay evidence is when a person makes an “out-of-court” statement to support
his or her claim and the knowledge of truth in the matter on-going in the court.
Perjury is the offence of being dishonest under oath. Zaheera is also charged for
perjury in this case as she publicly accepted that she lied in Court in Vadodara. She
requested a re-trial but when she was given the same opportunity she turned hostile
yet again.

What Zaheera did was that she made a mockery out of the justice system. In two
different courts, she turned hostile. This asserted that a person’s word or opinion
holds no value in the court. The statement of any witness can be manipulated with
power and authority and swayed in the favour of anyone who holds or exercises
that power. Usually, three things are taken into consideration to ensure that a
witness is honest. These are:

1. Administration of oath. The witness is made to affirm that he will speak

the truth, only the truth and nothing but the truth.
2. The witness should be present in the court whenever summoned. The
judge should be able to observe, analyze and examine the statement from
the witness firsthand.
3. The witness is subject to cross-examination. To find out any
inconsistencies in the statement of the witness he is eligible to be cross-
examined by any party.
In 2006, 9 of the 21 people were convicted of murder under Section 300 of the
IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. 8 of the accused were granted
acquittal and warrants were released for the 4 accused who went missing. This was
held by a Trial Court. Later, the Bombay High Court acquitted 5 of the convicts
stating the lack of evidence and upheld the decision taken by the Trial Court with
regard to the remaining 4.

Failure of police in carrying out investigation

Amnesty International also reported that the police failed to carry out a proper
investigation. The police work was shoddy, the complaints were recorded in a
defective manner. The witness statements were not recorded efficiently. The police
failed to collect corroborative evidence. The suspects were not responsibly
investigated.

Despite being a clear case of mob violence in the backdrop of riots the police failed
to collect evidence that would have proven to be helpful during the trial in
implicating the accused. Zaheera was allegedly intimidated along with her family
members which led her to retract her statements that she made in the F.I.R. This
 case was one of the first cases which were tried by the courts in relation to the
Gujarat riots (riots which led to a widespread loss of life and property).

The Best Bakery case is one of the landmark judgements in the Indian Judiciary. It
had a lot of sensitive issues that it presented itself with, like genocide, communal
violence, hearsay evidence, hostile witnesses, etc. The impact of the media was
huge on this case. The judiciary was successful in handling the case with utmost
poise and intelligence. The judges did not buckle under the pressure that
surrounded this case and remained unbiased all throughout. They judged the case
on its merits and not on its popularity. When they observed that Zaheera was
misleading the court time and again even she was duly punished.

Kasab- under magistrate confessed (SEC 164 CrPC)

Issues Involved
 Whether Article 22(1) comes into force only on the commencement of the trial as
provided under Section 304, CrPC?
 Whether not providing a lawyer as per the choice of the accused person is violation
of the accused’s fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution?

Observations
 The Supreme Court observed that the right to be defended by a legal practitioner
crystallizes only at the stage of commencement of the trial under Section 304 of
CrPC, but it is incorrect because there are two reasons:
o First, such a view is based on an unreasonably restricted construction of the
Constitutional and statutory provisions;
o Second, it overlooks the socio-economic realities of the country.
 The Court further emphasized upon the developments of the legal aid under Article
22, 39A and Section 304 of the CRPC.
o The Court said that the right to defend does not arise only at the time of
commencement of the trial but also when the accused is present before the
Magistrate as he is remanded from time to time.
o The Magistrate is under obligation to inform the accused about his right to free
legal aid just before the accused was produced.
 The right to access legal aid to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner
arises when a person arrested in connection with a cognizable offence is first
produced before a Magistrate.
 The right to free legal services is clearly essential for the reasonable, fair and just
procedure for a person accused.
 The Court further said it is the constitutional duty of the Court to provide the
lawyer to the accused even if he doesn’t ask for the lawyer.

Maria susairaj case (Neeraj Grover murder case)

The verdict
In July 2011, Additional Sessions judge, M.W. Chandwani gave the decision in
this appalling murder case. After analysing all the circumstances of the case and
the witnesses and proofs collected from both sides, the judge held Emile Jerome
Matthew guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section
304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term
of 10 years. The Court held Maria Susairaj not guilty of murder, but she was
penalised for the offence of destruction of evidence under Section 204 of the IPC
and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 3 years.

Matthew (Maria’s fiancé) was held guilty of culpable homicide

Though Matthew killed Grover with the intention of causing his death, he was not
held guilty of murder. He was held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. Let us see the difference between culpable homicide not amounting to
murder and culpable homicide amounting to murder.

Culpable homicide has been defined under Section 299 of the IPC. The ingredients
of Section 299 are :

 The intention of causing death,

 Bodily injury that is likely to cause death,
 The knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
Exceptions to culpable homicide not amounting to murder

It is pertinent to note here that there are certain exceptions given under Section
300, one of which has been applied to the present case. If the act by the offender
falls under any of the exceptions given under this section, then he will be held
guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The exceptions are listed
below :

 An act done in grave and sudden provocation,

 Act done in private defence,
 An act done by a public servant in the course of exercising his powers,
 Act done without any premeditation in a sudden fight,
 An act done where the victim himself consented to such an act.
In Neeraj Grover’s murder case, the Court observed that the act of murdering
Neeraj was not a premeditated act. The Court has construed it to come within the
ambit of the fourth exception to Section 300, listed above. If a person kills another
with the intention of causing death but does the act in a fit of rage or in a sudden
quarrel, then he will be held guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

In Neeraj Grover’s murder case, the facts explicitly show that the arguments
took place between both Neeraj and Matthew which further induced Matthew
to take a knife and stab Neeraj. This act attracts the guilt of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder, being an exception to Section 300. Hence, Matthew
was punished under Section 304 which prescribes punishment for culpable
homicide.

Re ramakka v queen case (Attempt- a punishment?)

Section 309 Of Ipc: Attempt To Commit Suicide

Section 309 of IPC has been reproduced below:
Attempt to commit suicide: Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any
act towards the commission of such offence, shall he punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year [or with fine, or with
both]."
Ingredient(s) and exception(s): There is only one ingredient that can be drawn
from this section, i.e., attempt or an act to attempt the commission of suicide.
Another ingredient as is essential to constitute criminal offense is the intention,
hence, if a person without intending to take his life, topples off a roof or consumes
overdose of a medicine by mistake or in an intoxicated state, he would not be liable
under this section.

Also, an exception is provided in such cases where a man out of his grief due to
loss of near and dear one, a family discord or some sort of distraction, decides to
take away his life but fails in the same, in such cases the man deserves 'consolation
instead of punishment' as was held by the Madras High Court in Queen Emperor
v. Ramakka.

The interesting fact is that only the failed commission attracts the provisions of
IPC, if the person succeeds, suicide is no offense under IPC. For Example, a
person jumps off the roof of a building with an intention to end his life and for
some reason fails in the same, the surviving person would be liable as an offender
under Section 309 of IPC.

The Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 has diluted the rigrousness of law relating to
"attempt to suicide". Section 115 of the Act says:

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 309 of the IPC (45 of 1860)

any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed, unless
proved otherwise, to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished
under the said Code.

2. The appropriate Government shall have a duty to provide care, treatment,

and rehabilitation to a person, having severe stress and who attempted to
commit suicide, to reduce the risk of recurrence of attempt to commit
suicide.