AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Savitri Ratho, J
Heard Mr.J.K.Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Panda, learned counsel relies on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2020) 80 OCR (SC)-641 (Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu). He also draws the attention of the Court to paragraphs 241 and 243 of the said judgment, which are extracted below:
“241. There can be no doubt that any confession made under compulsion to any person whether or not a police officer would attract Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. Any confession made under compulsion would also be hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Confession under compulsion is no evidence in the eye of law.
A confessional statement does not automatically result in the conviction of an accused offender. Such statements have to be tendered and proved in accordance with law. The evidentiary value of the statement which is confessional in nature has to be weighed and assessed by the Court at the trial.”
Mr. Panda, learned counsel submits that there is no other material against the petitioner to entangle in the case other than the statement of the co-accused for which the petitioner should be released on bail.
Mr.R.Tripathy, learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that perusal of the charge sheet reveals that there is no other material against the petitioner except the statement of the accused-Bata Sinabai, but as he has not gone through the contents of the case diary, he prays for an adjournment.
List this matter on 08.09.2023 alongwith BLAPL No.7394 of 2023.
…………………………………