PUNJA MAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defence has therefore seriously challenged the extra judicial confession on the following grounds:-

(2.) The prosecution, however has relied on the fact that such a confession was made to a crowd and not to the Police Patel himself and that therefore it was not hit by section 24 or 25 of the Act. Mr. Vidyarthi also contended that in any event the information part which directly related to the discovery was admissible.

(3.) Sections 24 to 30 of the Act deal with admissibility of confession i. e. a statement made by a person stating or suggesting that he had committed a crime. We have not to undertake a detailed analysis of various sections as in the case of State of U. P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya 1960 (Vol. 1) S. C. R. 14 at page 23 The Supreme Court on an analysis of sections 24 to 27 of the Act and section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has held that the following material propositions emerge:-