HC calls for careful examination of confessions, recoveries in criminal cases
Warns against blanket rejection of disclosure statements
Chandigarh, Updated At : 02:09 PM Nov 20, 2024 IST
Advertisement
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that confessions and recoveries made during police custody on the basis of disclosure statements by the accused require meticulous scrutiny to ensure they hold up as reliable evidence in criminal cases.
The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma stated that the evidence should be given proper importance, especially in cases where no direct evidence is available, unless the accused can prove flaws in such confessions or the items recovered based on them,
The court also outlined essential principles that must guide such scrutiny. It held that the defence must establish, among other things, that the disclosure statement and the resulting recoveries were fabricated, that the fact "discovered" did not arise exclusively from the accused's custodial confession, or that the recovered item was easily available in the market or planted at the site. Importantly, it added that the recovery's integrity could be challenged if the recovered item was not sealed or sent for forensic analysis.
The Bench further stated that in cases reliant on eye-witness accounts, a witness's retraction from their initial statement could diminish the evidentiary value of recoveries. If the court was convinced that the retraction was credible and exposed investigative lapses, the recoveries and disclosure statements would lose their evidentiary significance.
The court, however, warned against a blanket rejection of disclosure statements and recoveries. It stated:
"Straightaway rejecting cogently proven disclosure statements and recoveries would result in an injustice to the victim or the family of the deceased. Each case must be carefully assessed to determine if the disclosure statement and recovery withstand the principles outlined."
The judgment also explored the interplay between medical evidence and recoveries. It observed that recoveries that failed to align with medical findings on injuries sustained by the victim weakened the prosecution's case. Conversely, when recoveries and circumstantial evidence aligned seamlessly, they formed a crucial incriminatory link, especially in cases lacking direct evidence.
Citing Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court reaffirmed that confessions made during police custody are inadmissible unless they led to the discovery of a fact exclusively within the accused's knowledge.
The Bench also clarified that the prosecution carried dual burden: proving the validity of the disclosure statements and recoveries while establishing other incriminatory links to sustain the charges. It concluded by cautioning courts to exercise "insightful comparative analysis" when weighing the credibility of retracted eye-witness accounts against the evidentiary value of recoveries.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Copyright © The Tribune Trust, 2024
