Whether court can convict the accused on the basis of his videographic confession made before police?

Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court went completely wrong in placing reliance on the voluntary statements of the Accused and their videography statements. Under Article 20(3)1 of the Constitution of India, an Accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself. Again, Under Section 252 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; a confessional statement given by an Accused before a Police officer is inadmissible as evidence.

The reference of the Supreme Court judgment by the trial Court (Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy v. Shri V.V. Giri) is also misplaced. That case only refers to the admissibility of a tape-recorded conversation in an election petition which is tried before a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure (Section 87 of the Representation of People Act, 1951). This Court, in the above cited judgment was not dealing with a criminal case and most certainly not on the admissibility of a statement given by an Accused to the Police Under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, the above judgment also ends with a note of caution:

20. The other disturbing feature that we have noticed is that voluntary statements of the Appellants were recorded on a DVD which was played in Court and formed the basis of the judgment of the Trial Court as is noticeable from paragraph Nos. 34 and 35 of its judgment. Such a statement is again in the nature of a confession to a Police Officer and is completely hit by the principles of Evidence Act. If at all the Accused were desirous of making confessions, the Investigating Machinery could have facilitated recording of confession by producing them before a Magistrate for appropriate action in terms of Section 164 of the Code. Any departure from that course is not acceptable and cannot be recognized and taken on record as evidence. The Trial Court erred in exhibiting those DVD statement Exh.P-25 to 28. As a matter of fact, it went further in relying upon them while concluding the matter on the issue of conviction.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1597-1600 of 2022 

Decided On: 30.09.2022

Munikrishna and Ors. Vs.  State by Ulsoor PS

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

U.U. Lalit, C.J.I., S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.

Author: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1289/2022

Print Page

Process for selection to public posts must be videographed: SC

We are of the view that for the purity of selection to the public posts, it is desirable that as far as possible the selection process conducted by the selection bodies, especially the State Public Service Commissions and the State Selection Boards, is videographed. It is desirable that at examination centres as well as interview centres CCTV cameras are installed to the extent viable. Footage thereof may be seen by an independent committee of three members and report of such committee may be placed on the website concerned.

In the Supreme Court of India

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

(Before Adarsh Kumar Goel and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33995-34027/2017

The State of Meghalaya & Anr. etc. 

v.

Phikirbha Khariah & Ors. etc. 

Decided on April 6, 2018

Citation:2018 SCC OnLine SC 336

Print Page