SC upholds life sentence to robbery accused

SC upholds life sentence to robbery accused
PRESS TRUST OF INDIA

NEW DELHI, FEB 13: Confirming an award of life sentence to an accused involved in a daylight robbery-cum-murder in a North Delhi locality 10 years back, the Supreme Court has said that a confessional statement before the police cannot be discarded if it led to discovery of stolen items or weapons used in the crime.

"The principle of admitting evidence of statments made by a person giving information leading to the discovery of facts which may be used in evidence against him is manifestly reasonable," a Bench comprising Justice K T Thomas and Justice R P Sethi said in a recent judgement.

It uphled the trial court verdict awarding life sentence to one Vinod for stabbing to death one Sheela while committing robbery of her house on June 20, 1990 with the help of his friends. The other accused were given five year jail terms.

The trial court had based its verdict on the confessional statement of the accused which led to discovery of the tools used for committing the crime as well as the looted property.

The accused challenged the trial court decision saying as per the Evidence Act the statment made before the police was not admissible as evidence and hence they could not have been convicted on the above premise.

Justice Sethi, writing the judgment for the Bench, said under Section 27 of the Evidence Act "If a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly it can be safely allowed to be given in evidence". However, Justice Sethi said as Section 27 was alleged to be frequently misused by the police, the courts were required to be vigilant about its application.

"The court must ensure the credibility of evidence by the police because this provision is vulnerable to abuse, he said.

"It does not, however, mean that any statement made in terms of Section 27 should be seen with suspicion and it cannot be discarded only on the ground that it was made to a police officer during investigation," Justice Sethi said.

The Court has to be cautious that no effort was made by the prosecution to make out a statement of accused with a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact in order to attract the provisions of Section 27, the judge said.

He said the State was as much concerned with punishing of fenders who might be proved guilty of committing offence as it was concerned with protecting persons who might be compelled to give confessional statments.

The apex court said "Section 27 renders information admissible on the ground that the discovery of a fact pursuant to a statement made by a person in custody is a guarantee of truth of the statment made by him and the legislature has chosen to make on that ground an exception to the rule prohibiting proof of such statement."