A similar situation also arose before the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ramkishore Bharatsinh Yadav Vs. State of Gujarat and another 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 3121 wherein, it has been observed as under:
“22. It is an admitted fact that at the time of making
confessional statement during the process of pointing out
and demonstration panchnamas, the appellant-accused was
admittedly in the police custody. Moreover, considering the
fact that nothing had been discovered or recovered through
these panchanamas, we are of the opinion that the trial
court, in considering these evidence for convicting the
appellants-accused, has fell in error, since the same is
inadmissible.” {Para 23}
24. To put it all together, a demonstration shown by an accused depicting the manner in which an offence is committed by him is hit by Section 25 of the Act and for the reasons stated above, it is not admissible even under Section 27 of the Act as an exception to Section 25 of the Act.
25. The learned Judge also observed that some part of the
demonstration made by the petitioners which relates to the
subsequent conduct of the petitioners is admissible in evidence
under Section 8 of the Act. No doubt, subsequent conduct of an
accused is relevant if it influences or is influenced by any fact in
issue or relevant fact. However, the learned Judge failed to
consider that the demonstration shown by the petitioners to the
police as to their conduct is admissible against them under Section 8 of the Act only to the extent of its non-confessional portion. Meaning thereby, any evidence showing the conduct of an accused must first overcome the bar created by Section 25 of the Act and only then it can be relied upon under Section 8 of the Act. (See: Bheru Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1994 (2) SCC 467 and Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar 1965 SCC OnLine SC 109. In the present case, the entire demonstration panchanama is hit by Section 25 of the Act. Therefore, demonstration made by the petitioners to show the manner in which the offence was committed by them is not admissible under Section 8 of the Act even to show subsequent conduct.
26. To conclude, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered these aspects and erroneously overruled the objection of the petitioners. Therefore, the orders dated 08.10.2024 and 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Sessions Trial No.24 of 2022 are hereby set aside. The objections of the petitioners are sustained. Accordingly, the petition succeeds.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.49 OF 2025
Rahul S/o Kisan Jaybhaye, Vs The State of Maharashtra
CORAM: M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.07.2025
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:7427
Print Page