The Hon’ble Supreme Court, today, i.e. on 5thJuly 2019, in the matter of Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. v. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc. observed that it is not necessary to state every minute details in the statement given to the police during investigation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that:
It cannot be said to be a universal formula that whenever an incident has happened in a car, blood should be found on a particular place. Thus, an attempt to discredit the deposition of the witness on the aforesaid ground that some blood has not been recovered from the seat cover of the car by itself, cannot be said to be circumstances leading to doubting of the incident in the car. (Para 29)
In case of communicating injuries, it is not necessary that the bullet should enter any part of the body while reaching to the last injury, it may cause scratch or touched the small part of the body or soft tissue. (Para 43)
It is not necessary to state every minute details in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. (Para 48)
It is not for the autopsy doctor to give a vivid description as to how the deceased reacted at the time when gunshots were fired upon him as he was not an eye witness. (Para 48)
The track of bullet may take a different course once the injury has been caused. Bullet may ricochet inside the body after causing the injury. (Para 61)
Estimation of time may differ by some margin when a statement is made in court after years together. On a rough estimate of time, no adverse inference can be drawn as to the correctness of the version by the witness. (This inference has been drawn on the basis of Para 72)
The evidence of sketch is not of much significance. Sometime the sketch may not tally with the version given by a witness. (Para 75)
A correspondence between major striae, general gross counter and a reasonable number of finer striae will prove identity. No two bullets encounter precisely the same conditions in passing through a bore, nor do the corresponding striae always appear at the same lengthwise position on “identical‘‘ specimen. (Para 95)
Spot map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that the Inspector saw himself at the spot. Any mark put on the spot map on the basis of statements made by the witness to the Inspector would be inadmissible in view of the clear provisions of section 162 Cr.P.C. (Para 106)
(Para 114) Following safeguards are provided in the provisions contained in section 32 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002:
(i). Confession to be made by the person before a Police Officer not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police.
(ii). It has to be recorded either in writing or on any mechanical or electronic device like cassettes, tapes or soundtracks.
(iii). The Police Officer before recording confession has to appraise the accused in writing that he is not bound to make a confession and in case he makes it, the same may be used against him.
(iv). That accused shall not be compelled to make any confession.
(v). The confession shall be recorded in an atmosphere free from threat or inducement.
(vi). Confession to recorded in the same language in which it is made.
(vii). The person who has confessed shall be produced before the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or CJM along with the recorded confession within 48 hours.
(viii). The CMM/CJM shall record the statement, if any, made by the person so produced and get his signature or thumb impression on it. If there is any complaint of torture by such a person, he shall be referred for medical examination to an Assistant Civil Surgeon or any officer higher in rank.
(ix). The person shall be sent to judicial custody and not to police custody.
What is the impact of police custody on the confessional statement has to be considered also in view of the fact whether the accused were given sufficient time to think over. (Para 131)
When several accused persons are involved in various cases and an accused is found involved in a series of cases, obviously, his police remand has to be taken in a particular case. That does not mean that he has been sent to police remand in some other cases would adversely affect the confession. What is envisaged is that with respect to the same crime, he should not normally be subjected to police remand once he makes a statement in the court with respect to his confession.(Para 132)
If deficiency in the investigation or the prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities of covering the obvious deficiencies, courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of the law. (Para 240)
Rule 8 of the rules of professional ethics framed by the Bar Council of India contained in section I of Chapter II of Part VI is binding on the members of the Bar unless and until the rule in question is amended or declared to be arbitrary or ultra vires for any reason, it is to be observed scrupulously by members of the Bar. Rules of professional ethics are meant to be observed by all concerned. (Para 268)
Copy of judgement: Judgement_05-Jul-2019