Back
1947 Supreme(SC) 4
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD WRIGHT, LORD SIMONDS, LORD UTHWATT AND SIR JOHN BEAUMONT.
PULUKURI KOTAYYA - Appellant
Versus
KING-EMPEROR - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Madras.
Decided On : Dec. 19, 1946; Feb. 5, 1947.
Solicitors for appellants:Barrow, Rogers & Nevill. Solicitor for respondent: The Solicitor, India Office.
Section 27 of the Evidence Act limits admissibility to information relating distinctly to the discovery of a fact (object, location, and knowledge); it excludes confessions regarding the object's use in a crime. Procedural irregularities are curable under Section 537 CrPC if no prejudice is caused.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Section 162 and Section 537 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 27 and 167 - Failure to supply statements of witnesses recorded by police during investigation - Whether such failure vitiates the trial - If the trial is conducted substantially in the manner prescribed by the Code, an irregularity involving a breach of mandatory provisions can be cured under Section 537 if no failure of justice is occasioned - In the present case, since statements recorded by another officer were provided and no prejudice was shown, the trial was held valid.
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Scope of "fact discovered" - The "fact" discovered embraces the object produced, the place from which it is produced, and the knowledge of the accused as to this - Information as to the past use or history of the object produced, such as a statement that a weapon was used to commit a murder, does not relate to its discovery and is therefore inadmissible - The proviso to Section 26 should not be interpreted to nullify the substance of the ban on confessions made to police officers.
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 167 - Effect of improper admission of evidence - If evidence is improperly admitted, the court must determine whether, independently of such evidence, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision.
Facts of the case:
Accused persons were convicted of rioting and murder. During the trial, it was found that statements recorded by a police sub-inspector in a notebook were not provided to the defense until the end of the prosecution's case, despite multiple requests. Additionally, certain confessional statements made in police custody were admitted as evidence under the discovery rule, including details connecting the discovered weapons to the commission of the crime.
Findings of Court:
The failure to provide the notebook statements was a breach of the procedural code but did not cause prejudice as other similar statements recorded by a circle inspector were available. Regarding the Evidence Act, the court found that only the part of the statement leading to the discovery of the object and the knowledge of its location is admissible; the part confessing the crime using that object is inadmissible.
Issues: 1. Whether the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of supplying witness statements to the accused vitiates the trial. 2. Whether the "fact discovered" under Section 27 of the Evidence Act includes information connecting the discovered object to the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: An irregularity in the conduct of a trial, even if it involves a breach of mandatory provisions, is curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if it does not result in a failure of justice. Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, only the information that relates distinctly to the discovery of the object, its location, and the accused's knowledge of it is admissible; statements regarding the use of the object in the crime are inadmissible as they do not relate to the discovery itself.
Result: Appeal allowed and the case remitted to the High Court to consider if sufficient evidence exists apart from the inadmissible confessional statements.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- murder
- rioting
-
offences against the person
-
practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
- witness statements
- trial irregularities
-
evidence
- confessions
- discovery of fact
-
criminal procedure
Judgement
Appeal (No.37 of 1946), by special leave, from a judgment and order of the High Court (Horwill and Bell, JJ.) (October 22, 1945) which dismissed an appeal against a judgment and order of the Court of Sessions, Guntur Division (August 2, 1945) whereby the appellants, who were accused Nos. 1 to 9, and nine others, were found guilty on charges of rioting and murder. Appellants 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 were sentenced to death, and appellants Nos. 3 and 9 were sentenced to transportation for life. There were lesser concurrent sentences which need not be noticed.
The appeal raised questions as to the effect of a failure to comply with the provisions of s. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and as to the construction of ss. 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The relevant facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
By s. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898—
“162. (1) No statement made by any person to a police-officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police-diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose (save as herein-after provided) at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made
"Provided that, when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, the Court shall on the request of the accused, refer to such writing and direct that the accused be furnished with a copy thereof, in order that any part of such statement, if duly proved, may be used to contradict such witness in the manner provided by s. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. When any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination."
Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provide—
"25. No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.”
"26. No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person." The explanation to the section was not relevant.
"27. Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”
1946. Dec. 17, 18, 19. Pritt K.C. and Handoo for the appellants. The trial was so defective in regard to two points that it should not be allowed to stand. First, there was a complete disregard of the mandatory provisions of s. 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the supply to the defence of the statements of witnesses to be used in cross-examination. Section 162 says that the defence must have the statement for their protection; the police in this case did not provide it until it was too late to be used. The defendants are expressly entitled by statute to the statement, whether in a note-book or not; it was asked for in court three times, and it was said three times that it did not exist. The authorities say that that is more than an error, omission or irregularity; it is an illegality which vitiates the trial Baliram Tikaram v. Emperor (( 1945) A. I. R. (Nag.) 1, 3, et seq.), Emperor
v. Bansidhar (( 1930) I. L. R. 53 A. 458.), Mahadeo v The King (( 1936) A. I. R. (P. C.) 242) and Abdul Rahman v. King-Emperor (( 1926) L. R. 54 I. A. 96, 102.). Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide the prosecution with any relief on this point; the failure to comply with the requirements of s. 162 vitiated the trial,
