Find a Lawyer

GANGOO RAM versus THE STATE

Sections 302/2011 Criminal Code (V9 1898), Articles 164 and 364 Definition of Evidence), CCP was not followed by the magistrate while recording the confessional statement of the accused was never explained to him. No such statement is required to be recorded The record order shows that the accused was asked twice whether he wanted to make a confession or police was not present at that time, the accused in a position to say no in such situation. Especially when the accused was never assured that after recording his statement he would not be handed over to the concerned police magistrate. During his cross-examination, he admitted that the handcuffs of the accused were not removed during the recording of the confessional statement, nor did he file any evidence in his favor. The CCP magistrate made the confession through section 6464. Instead of informing the accused in the allegations that he was not bound to commit a confession and what the confession would be, he deemed it appropriate that the minutes were sufficient time to ensure that the accused's confession was voluntary. The court completely lost sight of the fact that at the time the accused was allotted for reflection, Polly Stayed in the courtroom and the accused's handcuffs were never removed, the magistrate never assured the accused that he would not be handed over to the police, a confession that could not be voluntarily accepted because he was unable to prove the evidence. It was accepted that the High Court fixed the trial court's decision allowing the appeal and acquitted the accused. top advocates from Noorpur nooranga lawyer