Renuka Prasad Vs State 2025 INSC 657 - S. 161 CrPC - Ss.27,31 Evidence Act
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 161,162 - Section 161 statements of various witnesses who were questioned by the police during investigation are wholly inadmissible under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Merely because the IOs spoke of such statements having been made by the witnesses during investigation, does not give them any credibility, enabling acceptance, unless the witnesses themselves spoke of such motive or acts of commission or omission or instances from which conspiracy could be inferred as also the preparation, established beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 26) when the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is resiled from, there arises a possibility that the police coerced such statements, but considering the huge prevalence of such instances of the entire witnesses turning hostile, there could be various other factors also. It could be for fear of deposing against the accused, political pressure, pressure from family or society and even instances of monetary consideration. (Para 46)
Indian Evidence Act 1872 -Section 27,30 - Confession as mentioned in Section 30 is not evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act- When even the recovery made based on a confession under Section 27, by itself cannot inculpate the person who made such a confession, if there is no independent evidence otherwise connecting the fact discovered to the crime, there is no question of such a confession being made use of, to inculpate the other accused under Section 30 of the Evidence Act. (Para 41-42)]
Test Identification Parade -If there was an identification at the stage of investigation, it only aids the investigation and cannot lead to a conviction, unless the accused are identified in the box at the time of trial, in Court. (Para 19)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - When there are two reasonable views possible from the evidence led, the one favouring the accused should be adopted, especially since the presumption of innocence of the accused until proved guilty, a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence, stands further strengthened by the order of acquittal. (Para 48)
When even the recovery made based on a confession under Section 27, by itself cannot inculpate the person who made such a confession, if there is no independent evidence otherwise connecting the fact discovered to the crime, there is no question of such a confession being made… https://t.co/kmQmGs3lVU pic.twitter.com/sYW1Wex1zS
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) May 9, 2025