State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. vs Party(s)

3. From the pleadings and documents on record including the prayer sought it is apparent that the applicant has approached this Court by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now repealed) (akin to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) for causing interference/setting aside the part of the statement of Head Constable Anil Nagar son of Subhash Chandra Nagar, examined as PW-9 before the trial court.

4. It is to be noted that the part of the statement which the accused/applicant has impeached by way of instant application relates to the facts indicated in the recovery memo. In other words the witness PW-9 Anil Nagar reiterated the facts before the trial court which were indicated in the recovery memo when the accused/applicant was arrested/apprehended.

5. The prayer has been sought by the accused/applicant on the basis of Rule 2 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 27-C of the General Rule (Criminal), 1977 which says that "The Presiding Officers shall ensure that only admissible portion of Section 8 or Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1972 is marked and such portion alone is extracted on a separate sheet and marked and given an exhibit number", and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed on 22nd November, 2024, in Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2024 (Randeep Singh @ Rana Vs. State of Haryana and another). The referred paragraphs of the judgment are extracted herein under :- RELIANCE ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE "14. The evidence of PW-27 is relevant for different reasons. It is material to state how his evidence has been recorded. In the examination-in-chief, he has stated thus: “.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . I interrogated accused Randeep Rana and Rajesh @ Don. Both the accused persons admitted about the crime (objected to). Thereafter, they both brought to the police station and were lodged in the lock-up. On 10.7.2013, I interrogated accused Randeep @ Rana and Rajesh @ Don while in police custody one by one, who suffered disclosure statements Ex.P55 and Ex.P56 respectively. Said statements were signed by the respective accused and were witnessed by ASI Dharamvir and HC Sultan Singh. Accused Randeep @ Rana while admitting his involvement in the present case, had disclosed that about 13-14 years back his uncle was murdered by the family member of complainant. Due to that revenge they have hatched a conspiracy and after making planning with co-accused had abducted Gurpal and committed his murder that he could identify the place from where Gurpal was abducted, where he was murdered and where his body was thrown. He had also disclosed that Kaka @ Kanch in whose office the murder of Gurpal was committed was having the knowledge about all the conspiracy as he was the party of the conspiracy. He also disclosed that accused Chaman was also present in the said office. He also disclosed about the role played by accused Naini, Prabhjot, Rajesh @ Don, Vicky @ Kali, Parveen @ Kala, Mohit @ Kaga in the commission of crime of murder of Gurpal (object to being inadmissible). Similarly, accused Rajesh @ Don admitting his involvement in the commission of crime of the present case, has disclosed about the conspiracy of committing murder of Gurpal and he also disclosed about the vehicle used in the crime. He had also disclosed that Kaka @ Kanch in whose office the murder of Gurpal was committed was having the knowledge about all the conspiracy as he was the party of the conspiracy and that accused Chaman Lal was also present in the said office. He also 3 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 disclosed about the role played by accused Naini, Prabhjot, Randeep Rana, Vicky @ Kali, Parveen @ Kala, Mohit @ Kaga in the commission of crime of murder of Gurpal. The accused also disclosed about the place where they had left the car of Gurpal. He also offered to get the aforesaid place of occurrence identified. The aforesaid disclosure statements of the accused were reduced into writing as per their version, which were attested by ASI Dharamvir and HC Sultan Singh as witnesses (objected to being inadmissible). .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .” (emphasis added)

15. Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act read thus: “25. Confession to police-officer not to be proved.— No confession made to a police- officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.— No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Explanation.—In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).

27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.— Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

16. A perusal of the deposition of PW-27, which we have quoted above, shows that he attempted to prove the confessions allegedly made by the accused to a police officer when they were in Police custody. There is a complete prohibition on even proving such confessions. The learned Trial Judge has completely lost sight of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and has allowed PW-27 to prove the confessions allegedly made by the accused while they were in police custody. PW-27 stated that the appellant “suffered disclosure statement at Exhibits ‘P55’ and ‘P56’ respectively”. Obviously, he is referring to disclosure of the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The law 4 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 on disclosure under Section 27 is well settled right from the classic decision of the Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor2. In the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P.3, this Court relied upon the decision of the Privy Council and in paragraph 9 held thus: “9. Let us then turn to the question whether the statement of the appellant to the effect that “he had hidden them (the ornaments)” and “would point out the place” where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under Section 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge in this connection relied on Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor [(1946-47) 74 IA 65] where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. In that case the Judicial Committee considered Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is in these terms: “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” This section is an exception to Sections 25 and 26, which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody, unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police “whether it amounts to a confession or not” which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under Section 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under Section 27 and laid stress on the words “so much of such information…as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered” in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that “the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact”. It was further observed that— “Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.” 5 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing— “Information supplied by a person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house’ leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If however to the s tatement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.” (emphasis added) Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26. It permits certain parts of the statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody to be proved. Under Section 27, only that part of the statement made by the accused is admissible, which distinctly relates to the discovery. It becomes admissible when a fact is discovered as a consequence of the information received from the accused. What is admissible is only such information furnished by the accused as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered. No other part is admissible. By Exhibits ‘P55’ and ‘P56’, it is alleged that the accused showed the places where the deceased was abducted, where he was murdered and where his body was thrown. In this case, even the inadmissible part of the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been incorporated in the examination-in-chief of PW-27. The learned trial judge should not have recorded an inadmissible confession in the deposition. A confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is not admissible in the evidence except to the extent to which Section 27 is applicable. If such inadmissible confessions are made part of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, then there is every possibility that the Trial Courts may get influenced by it."

6. Upon due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned A.G.A., this Court is of the view that in this matter no indulgence is required. It is for the following reason :- (i) The trial court has already observed that the admissibility of the evidence would be considered at the stage of judgment, which indicates that the statement of PW-9 would be considered, after taking note of the relevant provisions in this regard including Section(s) 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "Act of 1872"). The relevant portion of the observation made by the trial court is extracted herein under :- 6 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 " ?-/I} O ?=?) ?/=}? ?9? +9K} -) +9 /9 +?m I /I ? +I?;9 ?-9? /O I/} -K; 9)O O 9 /-} /O ? /? /? -) ;O-o )9K 9K 9 -?m 9 +?9O/ /O /K)K +K K 9I)?m /9 ;O)I/ 9K? ? ?-o ?9? +I?;9 ?-9? /O ? /O /O -) I ?-? /? ?-? ? 9 9I/? - 9KI /9 ?=?/ ??=/?)K K o?- 9-O y ?)+}/ O 9// ?=?9 ? /? ?/O?m +?m -o)I9?9 ?)}-??9- I ?-I 9Im" (ii) In regard to the main relief sought i.e. the relief No.(I), quoted above, no authority has been placed before this Court. (iii) As per the statement of learned counsel for the applicant made at the bar in the charge-sheet the prosecution has indicated the names of 15 witnesses, out of which 08 witnesses have already been examined and witness PW-9 would be cross-examined by the applicant/accused.

7. For the aforesaid, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. October 17, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. From the pleadings and documents on record including the prayer sought it is apparent that the applicant has approached this Court by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now repealed) (akin to Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) for causing interference/setting aside the part of the statement of Head Constable Anil Nagar son of Subhash Chandra Nagar, examined as PW-9 before the trial court.

4. It is to be noted that the part of the statement which the accused/applicant has impeached by way of instant application relates to the facts indicated in the recovery memo. In other words the witness PW-9 Anil Nagar reiterated the facts before the trial court which were indicated in the recovery memo when the accused/applicant was arrested/apprehended.

5. The prayer has been sought by the accused/applicant on the basis of Rule 2 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 27-C of the General Rule (Criminal), 1977 which says that "The Presiding Officers shall ensure that only admissible portion of Section 8 or Section 27 Indian Evidence Act, 1972 is marked and such portion alone is extracted on a separate sheet and marked and given an exhibit number", and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed on 22nd November, 2024, in Criminal Appeal No.297 of 2024 (Randeep Singh @ Rana Vs. State of Haryana and another). The referred paragraphs of the judgment are extracted herein under :- RELIANCE ON INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE "14. The evidence of PW-27 is relevant for different reasons. It is material to state how his evidence has been recorded. In the examination-in-chief, he has stated thus: “.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . I interrogated accused Randeep Rana and Rajesh @ Don. Both the accused persons admitted about the crime (objected to). Thereafter, they both brought to the police station and were lodged in the lock-up. On 10.7.2013, I interrogated accused Randeep @ Rana and Rajesh @ Don while in police custody one by one, who suffered disclosure statements Ex.P55 and Ex.P56 respectively. Said statements were signed by the respective accused and were witnessed by ASI Dharamvir and HC Sultan Singh. Accused Randeep @ Rana while admitting his involvement in the present case, had disclosed that about 13-14 years back his uncle was murdered by the family member of complainant. Due to that revenge they have hatched a conspiracy and after making planning with co-accused had abducted Gurpal and committed his murder that he could identify the place from where Gurpal was abducted, where he was murdered and where his body was thrown. He had also disclosed that Kaka @ Kanch in whose office the murder of Gurpal was committed was having the knowledge about all the conspiracy as he was the party of the conspiracy. He also disclosed that accused Chaman was also present in the said office. He also disclosed about the role played by accused Naini, Prabhjot, Rajesh @ Don, Vicky @ Kali, Parveen @ Kala, Mohit @ Kaga in the commission of crime of murder of Gurpal (object to being inadmissible). Similarly, accused Rajesh @ Don admitting his involvement in the commission of crime of the present case, has disclosed about the conspiracy of committing murder of Gurpal and he also disclosed about the vehicle used in the crime. He had also disclosed that Kaka @ Kanch in whose office the murder of Gurpal was committed was having the knowledge about all the conspiracy as he was the party of the conspiracy and that accused Chaman Lal was also present in the said office. He also 3 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 disclosed about the role played by accused Naini, Prabhjot, Randeep Rana, Vicky @ Kali, Parveen @ Kala, Mohit @ Kaga in the commission of crime of murder of Gurpal. The accused also disclosed about the place where they had left the car of Gurpal. He also offered to get the aforesaid place of occurrence identified. The aforesaid disclosure statements of the accused were reduced into writing as per their version, which were attested by ASI Dharamvir and HC Sultan Singh as witnesses (objected to being inadmissible). .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .” (emphasis added)

15. Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act read thus: “25. Confession to police-officer not to be proved.— No confession made to a police- officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him.— No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Explanation.—In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).

27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.— Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

16. A perusal of the deposition of PW-27, which we have quoted above, shows that he attempted to prove the confessions allegedly made by the accused to a police officer when they were in Police custody. There is a complete prohibition on even proving such confessions. The learned Trial Judge has completely lost sight of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and has allowed PW-27 to prove the confessions allegedly made by the accused while they were in police custody. PW-27 stated that the appellant “suffered disclosure statement at Exhibits ‘P55’ and ‘P56’ respectively”. Obviously, he is referring to disclosure of the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The law 4 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 on disclosure under Section 27 is well settled right from the classic decision of the Privy Council in the case of Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor2. In the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P.3, this Court relied upon the decision of the Privy Council and in paragraph 9 held thus: “9. Let us then turn to the question whether the statement of the appellant to the effect that “he had hidden them (the ornaments)” and “would point out the place” where they were, is wholly admissible in evidence under Section 27 or only that part of it is admissible where he stated that he would point out the place but not that part where he stated that he had hidden the ornaments. The Sessions Judge in this connection relied on Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor [(1946-47) 74 IA 65] where a part of the statement leading to the recovery of a knife in a murder case was held inadmissible by the Judicial Committee. In that case the Judicial Committee considered Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is in these terms: “Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” This section is an exception to Sections 25 and 26, which prohibit the proof of a confession made to a police officer or a confession made while a person is in police custody, unless it is made in immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 allows that part of the statement made by the accused to the police “whether it amounts to a confession or not” which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered to be proved. Thus even a confessional statement before the police which distinctly relates to the discovery of a fact may be proved under Section 27. The Judicial Committee had in that case to consider how much of the information given by the accused to the police would be admissible under Section 27 and laid stress on the words “so much of such information…as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered” in that connection. It held that the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. It was further pointed out that “the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact”. It was further observed that— “Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.” 5 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 This was exemplified further by the Judicial Committee by observing— “Information supplied by a person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house’ leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. If however to the s tatement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.” (emphasis added) Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26. It permits certain parts of the statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody to be proved. Under Section 27, only that part of the statement made by the accused is admissible, which distinctly relates to the discovery. It becomes admissible when a fact is discovered as a consequence of the information received from the accused. What is admissible is only such information furnished by the accused as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered. No other part is admissible. By Exhibits ‘P55’ and ‘P56’, it is alleged that the accused showed the places where the deceased was abducted, where he was murdered and where his body was thrown. In this case, even the inadmissible part of the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act has been incorporated in the examination-in-chief of PW-27. The learned trial judge should not have recorded an inadmissible confession in the deposition. A confessional statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is not admissible in the evidence except to the extent to which Section 27 is applicable. If such inadmissible confessions are made part of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, then there is every possibility that the Trial Courts may get influenced by it."

6. Upon due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant as also the learned A.G.A., this Court is of the view that in this matter no indulgence is required. It is for the following reason :- (i) The trial court has already observed that the admissibility of the evidence would be considered at the stage of judgment, which indicates that the statement of PW-9 would be considered, after taking note of the relevant provisions in this regard including Section(s) 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "Act of 1872"). The relevant portion of the observation made by the trial court is extracted herein under :- 6 A482 No. 8881 of 2025 " ?-/I} O ?=?) ?/=}? ?9? +9K} -) +9 /9 +?m I /I ? +I?;9 ?-9? /O I/} -K; 9)O O 9 /-} /O ? /? /? -) ;O-o )9K 9K 9 -?m 9 +?9O/ /O /K)K +K K 9I)?m /9 ;O)I/ 9K? ? ?-o ?9? +I?;9 ?-9? /O ? /O /O -) I ?-? /? ?-? ? 9 9I/? - 9KI /9 ?=?/ ??=/?)K K o?- 9-O y ?)+}/ O 9// ?=?9 ? /? ?/O?m +?m -o)I9?9 ?)}-??9- I ?-I 9Im" (ii) In regard to the main relief sought i.e. the relief No.(I), quoted above, no authority has been placed before this Court. (iii) As per the statement of learned counsel for the applicant made at the bar in the charge-sheet the prosecution has indicated the names of 15 witnesses, out of which 08 witnesses have already been examined and witness PW-9 would be cross-examined by the applicant/accused.

7. For the aforesaid, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. October 17, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench