SC orders probe
into
Modi's role in
Gujarat riots

 

Eight Critical Trials
in Gujarat

Northerner moors

  Anti-Christian Carnage:
(Orissa 2008)

 Click here for online
donations to CJP

 

ABOUT US

SUPPORT US

CONTACT US

FEEDBACK

 

Compensation to  Gujarat Riot Victims

 

Public Meeting

Fatwa on Terrorism issued by Mufti Fuzail-ur-Rahman Hilal Usmani
(Pronounced in person at a Public Meeting, “Citizens Against Terror”, organized by Citizens for Justice and Peace, Muslims for Secular Democracy and others in Mumbai on July 27, 2006).

Text of Fatwa: Hindi | Urdu | Marathi | Gujarati

Message from Sajjadanashin Of
Hazrat Khwaja Saheb,
Ajmer Shari
f

Press Coverage of Meeting

Statement of Condemnation
(Mumbai Blast)

 

November 24, 2008

 

To,

Shri RK Raghavan

Chairperson

Special Investigation Team (SIT)

Gandhinagar

 

Dear Sir,

 

Given the background of criminal trials in our country in general and the Gujarat 2002 trials in particular, it may be a wise and sound idea by SIT to record statements of witnesses and eye witnesses under Section 164 of the CRPC before a Magistrate. As I am sure you are already aware, the Gujarat police are recording 164 statements of both accused and witnesses connected with the blast investigations. Why not for the witnesses/eyewitnesses of the mass carnage of 2002?

 

Sir in this connection I have taken the liberty of preparing this note…May I simply add that this step would give the SIT efforts a sound and solid grounding before trials commence.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

 

Teesta Setalvad

Secretary

 

Confessional Statement u/s 164 Cr. P. C.

 

The provisions made in sec. 164 of the Code are reproduced  hereinbelow:

"164. Recording of confessions and statements -(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in he case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:

Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.

 

(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him, and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.

 

(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.

 

(4) Any such confession shall b recorded in the manner provided in sec. 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession, and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect -

 

"I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.

(signed) A.B. Magistrate"

(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case, and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.

(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under the section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried."

 

 

1.                  1997(1) Gujarat Law Herald 155: Confessional Statement recorded by the magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C.: Conditions to be followed-

( i) Magistrate to disclose to accused that he was a magistrate.

(ii) Magistrate is required  to inquire if the accused is influenced to make such a statement.

(iii) Magistrate to assure accused that he shall not be sent to police custody in case he didn’t make statement.

(iv) Magistrate should also question the accused as to why he wanted to make confession.

 

2.                  2002 (1) GCD 710 : 2001 GLHEL 206530
Para-8 On a bare perusal of sec. 164 of the Code, it becomes very clear that the procedure to be followed while recording confession and statement under section 164 is indicated in the section itself. Sub-section (2) of section 164 of the Code makes it clear that before recording any confession, the Magistrate shall explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him, and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is not being made voluntarily. Now, it is very clear that while recording statement and confession under sec. 164 of the Code, the Magistrate recording the statement is aware of the position that the accused brought to him is going to make a confessional statement before him. Even the accused person, taken to the Magistrate, knows that he is to make a confessional statement. The police investigating agency producing he accused before the Magistrate concerned is also aware of the aforesaid provision. In other words, before commencing of recording a confessional statement, everybody is aware of the fact that confessional statement is going to be made by the accused person in presence of a Magistrate. At that time, everybody knows that such a statement can be used against the person if he makes it. Then it is further made clear that if such an accused person is not willing to make confession, the learned Magistrate was not authorised to permit further detention of the person concerned in police custody. Then it is further made clear that while recording confessional statement, it is required to be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 of the Code for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession, and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record in the proforma given in sub-section (4) of sec. 164 of the Code……………..

 

  

…………….On the other hand, the confessional statement to be recorded under sec. 164 of the Code would naturally be a statement of an accused person. Therefore, the procedures have been envisaged and they are required to be followed before recording confessional statement under sec. 164 of the Code.

 

3. 1996(2) G.L.H. 421
 

A confession in criminal law means an admission of certain facts which constitute an offence committed by a person charged with the offence which is the subject-matter of confession. A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself a confession……

………….. Thus, as per the provision of Section 164 of the Code, confession or statement in the course of an investigation can be recorded either by a Metropolitan Magistrate or by a Judicial Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate was not empowered to record confessional statement of the appellant as he was neither a Metropolitan Magistrate nor a Judicial Magistrate. Furthermore, when investigation has already commenced, the confessional statement can be recorded by the Magistrate empowered by Section 164 of the Code, only in the manner prescribed in the said section.

 

…. While dismissing the State appeal, the Supreme Court has observed as under in para 8 of the judgment : 

The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch D 426 is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted. A Magistrate, therefore, cannot in the course of investigation record a confession except in the manner laid down in S. 164. The power to record the confession had obviously been given so that the confession might be proved by the record of it made in the manner laid down. If proof of the confession by other means was permissible, the whole provision of S.164 including the safeguards contained in it for the protection of accused persons would be rendered nugatory. The section, therefore, by conferring on magistrates the power to record statements or confessions, by necessary implication, prohibited a magistrate from giving oral evidence of the statements or confessions made to him."

 

4.   1997 (1) G. L. H. 155
 (A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 300 - Murder - Confessional statement of the accused recorded by Magistrate under S. 164 Cr. P. C. - No attempt on the part of Magistrate to ascertain voluntary character of confessional statement - Mere caution to the accused that he was not bound to make statement and that if he did make a statement that may be used against him as evidence would not be sufficient - The questions to be put to the accused by the Magistrate - Non-compliance of such aspect - Judicial confession before the Magistrate becomes unreliable.

Because of the above-said evidence tendered by the learned JMFC, Mr.Tanna, there is the contention coming from the learned counsels for the appellants that the above-said confessional statement cannot be said to be a genuine confessional statement which could be taken into consideration. The reliance is sought to be placed upon the Supreme Court decision in case of Shivappa, Appellant v. State of Karnataka, Respondent, Crimes, 1995(1), page 138 (AIR 1995 S. C. page 980). The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the administration of the caution to the accused that he was not bound to make a statement and that, if he did make a statement, that may be used against him as evidence would not be sufficient. The Supreme Court says that, the Magistrate must disclose to the accused that he was a Magistrate and that the confession was being recorded by him in that capacity. The Magistrate is also required to inquire as to whether the accused has been influenced by anyone to make any such confession. The Magistrate also would be required to lend assurance to the accused that he would not be sent back to police custody in case he did not make the confessional statement. The Magistrate recording the confessional statement also should question the accused as to why he wanted to make the confession or as to what had prompted him to make the confession. (Para 7)

 

5. xxxxxxxxxxxx-searching citation.

It is sole prerogative of the investigating officer to decide whether to record the statement of a particular person u/s 164 Cr.P.C. or not. The parties have no right to get their statement recorded u/s 164 Cr. P. C.

 


| About CJP || Home || Feedback |