In CRA-D-562-DB-2010 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- If signatured disclosure statement leads to relevant recoveries of weapons of offence, being made at accused's instance, then evidentiary worth is to be assigned thereto: P&H HC Justices Sureshwar Thakur and N.S. Shekhawat [30-09-2022]

Read Order: ANOOP ALIAS KIRORI V. STATE OF HARYANA

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, October 6, 2022: While dealing with an appeal against conviction, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the assigning of evidentiary worth to a signatured disclosure statement made by the accused, leading to the makings of the relevant recoveries at the instance of the ensues from the trite principle, that the confession of guilt carried in a proven disclosure statement as made by the convict would not become a bald or simpliciter confession nor would it be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act but only if it leads to the relevant recoveries being caused at the instance of the accused. 

The Bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and N.S. Shekhawat was dealing with an appeal against conviction of the appellant-accused. 

An FIR was registered against the accused-appellant and his co-accused under Sections 332/353/302/307/392/397, read with Section 34 of IPC, and, under Sections 25/27/57/59 of Arms Act. 

The petitioner was tried separately because he evaded arrest initially and was arrested later after he was a proclaimed offender. He was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 302, 307, 397 of IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Hence, the present appeal was filed. 

During the course of custodial interrogation of the appellant, he made a signatured disclosure statement wherein, he after confessing his guilt, revealed his willingness to ensure the recovery of SLR gun to the investigating officer concerned from the place of its hiding, given the relevant place being known only to him. In consequence thereto he caused the recovery of the SLR gun. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed with respect to the disclosure that when he was not able to prove that the recovery of the SLR gun was fictitious or a sheer invention through a stratagem employed by the investigating officer, thus, the above proven memos sparked an inference that the relevant charge drawn against the convict-appellant was cogently proven.

On the law governing such signatured statement, the Court observed that if a signatrured disclosure statement leads to the relevant recoveries of weapons of offence, being made at the instance of the accused, then evidentiary worth is to be assigned thereto(s). The bench further added that the assigning of evidentiary worth to a signatured disclosure statement made by the accused, leading to the makings of the relevant recovery(ies) at the instance of the accused ensues from the trite principle, that the confession of guilt carried in a proven disclosure statement as made by the convict would not become a bald or simpliciter confession nor also would be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, but only if it leads to the relevant recovery(ies) being caused at the instance of the accused. 

Also, the Bench was of the opinion that the assigning of evidentiary worth to a signatured disclosure statement made by the accused, leading to the makings of the relevant recovery(ies) at the instance of the accused ensues from the trite principle, that the confession of guilt carried in a proven disclosure statement as made by the convict would not become a bald or simpliciter confession nor also would be hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, but only if it leads to the relevant recovery(ies) being caused at the instance of the accused. 

Finding no merits in the appeal, the Court dismissed it.