Mohinder Singh alias Gurbax Singh vs State of Punjab

K.P.S. Sandhu, J.

Mohinder Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying therein that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, dated 16th July, 1984, be quashed. The facts which gave rise to this petition are as under.

A first information report was lodged with Police Station, Sangat, on 21st February, 1980, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was named as an accused person. The petitioner is alleged to have written a letter on 23rd February, 1980, addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police which was received in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Police on 27th February, 1980. It is the admitted case of both the sides that it is a letter in the nature of a confessional statement. During the trial the prosecution wanted to examine one Ranjit Singh in order to prove the contents of the aforesaid letter and the handwriting of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner in the trial Court raised an objection as to the admissibility in evidence of the letter in question. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that since it was a confession made to a police officer by a person accused of an offence it was not admissible in evidence. However, the learned trial Judge by relying upon an authority of the Supreme Court reported as Sita Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1906, came to finding that since letter was not written in the presence of a police officer it was not hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. In Sita Ram''s case (supra) out of three Hon''ble Judges, R.S. Bachawat, J., disagreed with the proposition of law laid down in that case and gave a dissenting note. Another Supreme Court authority reported as Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, A.I.R 1966 S.C. 119, has also been brought to my notice wherein the converse proposition of law was unanimously laid down. Their Lordships came to the finding that a confessional statement made to the police in the course of an investigation would be hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act and as such cannot be used against the maker when he becomes an accused person. Section 25 of the Evidence Act reads as under :

"No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a persons accused of any offence."

Mr. B.S. Sidhu, AdvocateGeneral, Punjab, who was called in to assist the Court in this case, has in all fairness conceded that the view taken in Aghnoo Nagesia''s case (supra) is the right view. I am myself of the view that the law laid down in Aghnoo Nagesia''s case is the correct law. It appears that Aghnoo Nagesia''s case was not brought to the notice of the Bench which decided Sita Ram''s case (supra). In this view of the matter, this petition has to be allowed. Consequently the impugned order dated 16th July, 1984, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, is set aside.