STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GHANASHYAM MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision was before Hon'ble Justice N.K. Das who by his order dt. 15-7-1981 referred the matter to a larger Bench since the case involves an important point of law on which there is no decision of this Court. The question which arises for consideration is whether a confessional statement of an accused recorded during the investigation of one case can be admitted as evidence in other cases started on F.I.Rs. lodged subsequent to recording of the confessional statement. The criminal revision is at the instance of the State against an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar holding that such a confessional statement cannot be admitted as evidence in the later cases.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that G.R. 1763/74 was registered on F.I.R. lodged on 1-10-1974. In that case a confessional statement of accused Prahallad Parida was recorded under S.164, Criminal P.C. on 2-12-1974. The statement was formally proved in that case by the Magistrate, P.W. 21 and was marked as Ext. 52. In the statement, the confessor implicated himself as well as the other two accused persons. On the basis of such confessional statement the Investigating Officer lodged F.I.Rs. on 6-12-1974, 10-12-1974 and 25-12-1975 in the Sahidnagar P.S., Bhubaneswar and on the basis of those F.I.Rs. G.R. Case Nos. 2207, 2208, 2209, 2210, 2216, 2217, 2218 and 2219 of 1974 and G.R. Case Nos. 190 and 191 of 1975 were registered. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted in all the 10 cases. During the trial of all these cases the Judicial Magistrate Sri M. R. Panda, who had recorded the confessional statement in G.R. Case No. 2207 of 1974, was examined and formally, proved the statement which has been marked as exhibits in all these cases. An objection was however raised in all the cases regarding the admissibility of the statement of Prahallad on the ground that the statement could not be treated as a confession recorded under S.164, Criminal P.C. in any of the 10 cases being not a statement recorded during the investigation of those cases and hence it was not admissible in evidence. The objection was overruled and the documents were marked as exhibits, in each case with the observation that the objection regarding admissibility was to be considered at the time of arguments. A revision carried before this Court in Criminal Revn. No. 505 of 1979 against the order was disposed of on 10-12-1979 without expressing any views on the question raised and left it to be considered and decided by the trial Court. The trial Court having held that the statement was inadmissible, the State has come up with this revision.

(3.) Indisputedly the statement cannot be used as confessional statements in any of the 10 cases. All these cases were started on F.I.Rs. lodged subsequent to the recording of the statement on 2-12-1974. Section 164, Cr. P.C. provides for recording of a confessional statement in relation to a case during investigation of that case. All these cases having been started on the F.I.Rs. lodged subsequent to the recording of the confessional statement in the previous G.R. Case, the statement cannot be treated as confession recorded during the investigation of these cases and hence is not admissible as such.