Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars statements recorded by police officers during the course of investigation, but does not exclude communications, such as anonymous letters, which are de hors the formal enquiry, even if received during the period of investigation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 21 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 162 - Murder and common intention - Common intention to commit murder can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, including the joint action of the accused in abducting the victim and the existence of a motive for revenge. (Para 11)

(B) Evidence - Identification - Conviction of an accused person can be sustained on the evidence of a single witness if the court, having seen and heard the witness depose, regards them as a witness of truth. (Para 12)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 162 - Admissibility of statements - Section 162 bars proof of statements made to a police officer during the course of investigation, specifically those recorded by the officer as part of the enquiry. There is a distinction between the "period of investigation" and the "course of investigation." A communication, such as an anonymous letter, is not ascribable to the formal enquiry conducted by the investigating officer and is therefore de hors the enquiry, meaning it is not hit by the bar under Section 162. (Para 15)

Facts of the case:
Three individuals abducted two village guards from a village center. One guard was shot dead while attempting to escape, while the other managed to take shelter and later reported the incident. The prosecution alleged that the motive for the murder was revenge, as the deceased had assisted the police in arresting a servant of one of the accused. The trial court convicted the accused of murder and sentenced them to death, a decision subsequently confirmed by the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found that common intention was established as the accused acted in concert and shared a motive of revenge. The identification of the accused by witnesses was held to be reliable and sufficient for conviction. Furthermore, an anonymous letter admitting the motive was deemed admissible as it did not constitute a statement recorded during the formal course of investigation.

Issues: Whether common intention to commit murder was established for all accused; whether conviction based on limited identification witnesses is legally permissible; and whether an anonymous letter received by an investigating officer is barred by Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Ratio Decidendi: Common intention is inferred from the conduct and motive of the parties. A single credible witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code excludes only those statements recorded by a police officer during the formal enquiry; communications external to that process, even if received during the period of investigation, remain admissible.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Judgment:

Mudholhar, J.-This judgment will govern Criminal Appeals Nos. 177 and 178 also. All these three appeals arise out of the same trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr, who conducted the trial convicted the appellant, Ramachandra Chaudhary who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1961 for an offence under section 302 Indian Penal Code. He also convicted Baleshwar Rai alias Nepali Master, appellant in this appeal and Jogendra Choudhary, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 178 of 1961 of an offence under section 302 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code. He sentenced each of the three to death. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court of Patna, and sentences of death passed against them were confirmed by it. They have come up before this Court by Special Leave.

The prosecution story is briefly as follows :-

On 17th March, 1959, at about 8.00 P.M., the chaukidars of the village Fateha had assembled, as usual, in the crime centre of the village. Their names are- Anandi Paswan (deceased), Misri Paswan (P.W. 2), Baleshwar Paswan (P.W. 3) and Narain Paswan. Anandi Paswan and Misri Paswan were lying on a chauki. Anandhi Paswan had a bhala and a muretha while Misri Paswan had a pharsa and a muretha . These weapons as well as the shirt of the deceased were kept on the chauki. The other two chaukidars were lying on the ground, The crime centre is housed in the dalan of Tilak Chaudhary (P.W. 6). One other person, Srilal Chaudhary (P.W. 7), the brother of Tilak Chaudhary, was also lying there on a khatia on the north-east of the said dalan . In an adjacent room were P.W. 11 Nathuni Chaudhary alias Durga Das and P. W. 12 Ramchander Jha.

According to the prosecution a little before 9.00 P.M., someone from outside called out " Darogaji ". On hearing this, the deceased Anandi Paswan and Misri paswan got up. It was a moonlit night and they saw Ramachandra Chaudhary, Jogendra Chaudhary and another person, who was later identified to be Nepali Master, standing close by. As soon as they went towards the appellants, Jogendra Chaudhary and Nepali Master caught the deceased while Ramchandra Chaudhary caught Misri Paswan. Both Ramchandra Chaudhary and Jogendra Chaudhary had guns with them which were slung across their shoulders. These three persons then took the deceased and Misri Paswan to the road to the East of the dalan , running north to south, and proceeded southward. Neither the deceased nor Misri Paswan raised any cry, apparently because they were threatened that if they did so, they would be shot. When the party reached a place to the west of one Peare Sao s house and to the east of the house of Rampratap Tanti (P.W. 5), the deceased called for Rampratap s help, and freeing himself from the clutches of his captors started running away westward. Upon this Ramchandra Chandra Chaudhary let go the hand of Misri Paswan and fired at the deceased. Misri Paswan then ran into the house of Peare Sao and took shelter there. While entering that house, he heard a second gun shot. His presence in the house was detected by Mst. Ajo (P.W. 8), the wife of Peare Sao who forced him to leave the house. Thereafter he came out into the lane and concealed himself behind the door. After the moon had set and it became dark, he went to the house of Fakir Paswan (P.W. 4), which is to the east of the house of Peare Sao, and narrated the occurrence to him. He mentioned Ramchandra and Jogendra as the two persons who had taken part in the incident. In the early hours of the morning he went to the place where gun shots were fired, and found Anandi Paswan, Chaukidar lying dead in a ditch by the side of the road, face downwards. He noticed that Anandi Paswan had received two gun shot wounds on his back. Thereafter he went home and contacted the other Chaukidar, Narain Paswan and Baleswar Paswan. He placed them in charge of the dead body and then went to the Police Station along with Ramdeo, son of the deceased. He lodged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1963 Supreme(SC) 21

Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code bars statements recorded by police officers during the course of investigation, but does not exclude communications, such as anonymous letters, which are de hors the formal enquiry, even if received during the period of investigation.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Login now and unlock premium legal research