The division judge bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Idrish Ansary Vs The State of West Bengal held that merely because the purported confession was in writing it would not escape the exclusion clause engrafted in Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the son of the appellant filed a written complaint in which it was alleged that the complainant went to the quarter of one Zakir Hussain, furthermore, he was called upon by the inmates, and while exiting the quarter, he saw his father (the appellant) in the confused state. In the aftermath of it, the appellant revealed to him that he had strangled his sister to death. According to the complaint, the appellant himself told him that he would be coming to the Anara Police Station to surrender himself.
The charges were framed and the trial court convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months more. The convict felt aggrieved and thus preferred the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the confessional statement made before the police officer is not admissible under the eyes of the law as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It was furthermore contended that the trial court committed a grave error by relying upon the oral evidence of PW-7.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant relied upon the judgments titled Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar, and Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the trial court was justified in passing the judgment and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble High Court while taking into consideration the judgment titled Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar observed that the legislature wisely stipulated in Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act that a confession made to a police officer and/or while in the police custody shall not be used as evidence against a person accused of any crime.
It was furthermore observed that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception to the provisions of Sections 26 and 27, where the ban of Sections 25 and 26 has been somewhat lifted; specifically, a confession by an accused that results in discovery, while he is in the custody of the police officer, may be proved against him in accordance with the law.
It was noted that the confession made in writing by the present Appellant before PW-7 (police official) is not admissible in court. Therefore, the learned trial court should have disregarded PW7's oral testimony and should have refused to admit the alleged written confessional statement of the present appellant as evidence by identifying it as an Exhibit during the trial.
The Hon’ble Court emphasizes that though the alleged confession was in writing, that doesn't mean it would be exempt from the exclusionary rule incorporated into Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
It was furthermore noted that apart from the oral evidence of PW7, no other material is available on record to sustain the charge under Section 302 IPC against the present Appellant.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court held that the trial court was not justified in passing the impugned judgment.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the High Court acquitted the appellant of all the charges.
Case Title: Idrish Ansary Vs The State of West Bengal
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
Citation: CRA 549 of 2015
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Himanshu De, Sr. Adv., Ms. Monami Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Musharraf Alam, Adv.
Advocates for the State: Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Adv., Ms. Eshita Dutta, Adv.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
