EMPEROR Vs. RAMNATH MAHABIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Advocate-General has tendered in evidence the statement made by the accused Ramath before the Coroner on September 25, 1925, when the Coroner was holding an inquest under the Coroner's Act, 1871, over the body of the deceased Surajballi.

(2.) Mr. Pendse, for the accused, objects that is statement is inadmissible. He mainly relies upon Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under which a Magistrate may record any statement or confession made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial." The section lays down that he should record a confession in a particular manner and append to it a certificate, inter alia, that he has explained to the person making, the confession that any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him.

(3.) In this particular case the Coroner, Mr. Athavle, who took the statement, has given evidence that the accused was told that he need not make any statement but that he insisted upon doing so, and that the statement was one made of his own initiative and of his own free will. That evidence is corroborated by the notes and certificate that Mr. Athavle made at the time upon the statement and there cannot be the slightest doubt that the accused wanted to make this statement and that it was entirely voluntary. Assuming that it amounted to a confession, or contained incriminating statements of a confessional nature, it is perfectly clear that the statement would not be inadmissible under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, as being made under some improper inducement or in the other circumstances mentioned in that section. The Coroner's Act distinctly contemplates-that the Coroner may take the statement of an accused person who is in the custody of the police, because Section 20 provides that a Coroner shall be deemed to be a Magistrate for the purposes of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.