2018 Supreme(Sikk) 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM AT GANGTOK
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JJ.
State of Sikkim - Appellant
Versus
Suren Rai, S/o Shri Dhan Bahadur Rai - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 17 of 2016
Decided On : 10-03-2018

Administration of an oath to an accused person during the recording of a confession is an illegality that violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Such a confession is fatal to its admissibility and cannot be cured as a procedural irregularity under Section 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 164, 281, and 463 - Constitution of India - Article 20(3) - Oaths Act, 1969 - Sections 4(2) and 7 - Recording of confessional statement - Administration of oath to an accused - Legality - The procedure for recording a confession under Section 164 CrPC is mandatory and must be followed strictly - Administration of oath to an accused person while recording a confession is prohibited, unlawful, and illegal - It constitutes a violation of the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) - Section 463 CrPC provides for the curing of procedural irregularities but does not extend to curing substantive illegalities - A confessional statement recorded on oath is fatal to the confession's admissibility and cannot be validated by Section 463 CrPC. (Paras 69, 116, 125)

(B) Interpretation of Statutes - Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all - Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden - Section 463 CrPC is restricted to irregularities in procedure and cannot be used to bypass mandatory constitutional safeguards. (Paras 73, 118, 123)

Facts of the case:
A Division Bench referred to a Full Bench three legal questions concerning the admissibility of a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the accused has been administered an oath. The core inquiry involved whether this act renders the confession inadmissible (fatal) or if it constitutes a mere irregularity curable under Section 463 CrPC, and whether it violates the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the administration of an oath to an accused person during the recording of a confession is a direct violation of both the statutory scheme of Section 164 CrPC and the fundamental guarantee provided by Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Because the administration of oaths to an accused is explicitly prohibited and unconstitutional, it constitutes a substantial illegality rather than a procedural irregularity; therefore, Section 463 CrPC is inapplicable in attempting to cure such a defect.

Issues: 1. Whether a confessional statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC on oath is fatal or remains protected by the provisions of Section 463 CrPC. 2. Whether the administration of an oath to an accused leads to an inference that the confession is involuntary and thus fatal. 3. Whether the administration of an oath to an accused during the recording of a confession violates Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The administration of an oath to an accused person is an illegal act that compromises the voluntariness of the confession, which is a prerequisite for admissibility. Constitutional rights are paramount, and any substantial illegality that infringes upon these rights cannot be treated as a curable procedural defect under Section 463 CrPC.

Result: The reference is answered in the affirmative: a confessional statement recorded on oath is fatal to its admissibility and cannot be cured under Section 463 CrPC.