Accused's Statement Recorded After Formal Accusation is Inadmissible Under Article 20(3) of the Constitution: Gauhati High Court - 2025-09-26

Tracking Legal Developments.

Statement Recorded After Formal Accusation Inadmissible Under Article 20(3), Gauhati HC Acquits Man in Railway Property Case

Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court has acquitted a man convicted for unlawful possession of railway property, holding that his inculpatory statement, recorded by an Enquiry Officer after a formal accusation had been made against him, is inadmissible under the protective sweep of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Justice Manish Choudhury, setting aside the concurrent findings of two lower courts, underscored the critical distinction between a statement's admissibility under the Evidence Act and its protection under the constitutional right against self-incrimination.

Case Background

The case originated in February 2006 when security personnel of M/s Oil India Limited (OIL) intercepted a truck being loaded with suspected stolen pipes at a scrap yard. The petitioner, Deepak Gupta, was one of thirteen individuals apprehended at the scene. An FIR was initially registered under Sections 379/411 of the IPC.

Subsequently, the Railway Protection Force (RPF) was informed that the same truck also contained railway materials. A search by the RPF led to the seizure of 2,247 rail screws from the truck, which was parked at the Naharkatia Police Station. An enquiry under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 [RP(UP) Act] was initiated, culminating in a prosecution report against Gupta and others. While the trial against his co-accused was separated, Gupta alone faced the proceedings, was convicted by the Special Railway Magistrate, and his conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh.

Key Arguments

The petitioner's counsel, Senior Advocate Mr. P. Borah, challenged the conviction on several grounds: * The conviction was primarily based on a recorded statement of the accused (Exhibit 18), which was inadmissible as it violated his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). * The material objects, i.e., the rail screws, were never produced before the trial court. * The examination of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC was flawed, as crucial incriminating evidence, including the statement, was never put to him for explanation.

The respondent, represented by Special Counsel Mr. S.C. Biswas, argued that the statement was admissible. He contended that an RPF Officer conducting an enquiry under the RP(UP) Act is not a 'Police Officer' for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and therefore, a confession made to him is not barred.

High Court's Landmark Ruling

Justice Choudhury meticulously analyzed the constitutional and procedural lapses in the case. The court first acknowledged the settled law from the Supreme Court's decision in Balkishan A. Devidayal vs. State of Maharashtra , confirming that an RPF officer is not a 'Police Officer' and a confession made to him is not barred by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

However, the court delved deeper into the protection guaranteed by Article 20(3), which states, "No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

The pivotal question was whether the petitioner, at the time of making the statement, was a "person accused of an offence."

The court found that the RPF Enquiry Officer had formally apprised the trial court on February 8, 2006, that Deepak Gupta was suspected of committing an offence under the RP(UP) Act and sought his remand to conduct the enquiry. The petitioner's statement was recorded eight days later, on February 16, 2006, while he was in judicial custody.

The judgment stated:

"In the light of the settled proposition of law and the time of recording of the statement of the accused, that is, Exhibit no. 18, the accused herein at that point of time was already a person accused of the offence under Section 3[a] of the RP[UP] Act. Therefore, the recorded statement being an inculpatory one, it comes within the protective sweep of Article 20[3] of the Constitution making it inadmissible in evidence."

Additional Flaws in the Prosecution Case

The High Court also highlighted other significant deficiencies in the prosecution's case: 1. Failure to Produce Evidence: The allegedly stolen rail screws were never produced in court, creating room for an adverse inference against the prosecution. 2. Defective Section 313 Examination: The trial court failed to question the accused on his purported confession (Exhibit 18) and other key evidence during his examination under Section 313 CrPC. This denied him a fair opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing against him, rendering the trial vulnerable. 3. Insufficient Remaining Evidence: Once the inadmissible statement was excluded, the remaining evidence was found to be "deficient ones palpably falling short of the standard beyond reasonable doubt" to sustain a conviction.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the lower courts' verdicts were based on inadmissible evidence and marred by procedural illegalities, the High Court allowed the revision petition.

"The Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Trial Court...and the Judgment and Order dated 07.01.2012 passed by the Appellate Court...are unsustainable in law. Consequently, the same are liable to be set aside and quashed," the court ordered, acquitting Deepak Gupta of the charge.