In the Lalita Kumar v. Government of U.P (2013)case, the Supreme Court made several important observations:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the case of Arjun and others v. State of Rajasthan, the court noted that a little discrepancy or improvement in testimony should not necessarily discredit it. Trivial discrepancies should be ignored, and under circumstantial evidence, human testimony is typically substantially true. Additionally, in the PakalaNarayana Swami v. Emperor case, the court defined what constitutes a confession, emphasizing that it must admit the offense or substantially all the facts that make up the offense.

 

In the Sahoo v. State of UP case, a statement by the accused admitting to the crime was considered a relevant confession, even without communication to others.

Certainly, I can help you rephrase the content while maintaining the core information. Here’s a revised version of the information you provided:

 

In the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, it was observed that Section 164(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as elaborated by Rule 32 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, mandates that when an accused, intending to make a confession, is presented before a magistrate, the magistrate must clarify to the accused that the confession is not meant to turn them into an approver. The accused should be informed that they are not compelled to make a confession and warned that any statement will be used as evidence against them during the trial. Failure to comply with this section renders the confession inadmissible, and this defect cannot be rectified under Section 463 of the Cr.P.C.

 

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, the Supreme Court emphasized that confessions are considered reliable because individuals typically wouldn’t admit guilt unless motivated by their conscience to tell the truth.

 

Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana highlighted that if a magistrate fails to explain to an accused that making a confession is voluntary and that it may be used against them, such a confession cannot be considered valid. Statements recorded by a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC are considered public documents under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and are admissible under Section 80 of the same Act.

 

In Guruvind Palli Anna Roa And others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court ruled that statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC do not require formal proof, and there’s no need to summon the magistrate who recorded them.

 

In RABINDRA KUMAR PAL alias DARA SINGH v. REPUBLIC OF INDIA, the Supreme Court established several principles regarding the recording of confessions, emphasizing that compliance with Section 164 Cr.P.C. is essential and that a searching inquiry should be made to ensure no external influence on the accused.

 

Regarding remand and default bail, the Delhi High Court’s decision in Noor Mohd vs State stressed that remand should be justified, and an accused can be released on bail if the prosecution fails to provide sufficient grounds for remand.

 

The Supreme Court’s decision in CBI vs Anupam J. Kulkarni clarified the limitations on police custody after authorization, and the time for default bail is calculated from the date of the first remand after arrest, including the date of filing the charge sheet.

 

In Uday Mohanlal Acharya vs. State of Maharashtra, it was ruled that the accused’s right to default bail is not extinguished by certain circumstances unless they fail to furnish bail after being granted default bail.

 

The submission of a charge sheet reflects the completion of initial investigation by the police, as highlighted in Rama Shankar v. State.

 

In Rama Choudhary v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of ‘Further Investigation’ under Section 173(8) CrPC, and under Section 156(3), the magistrate can order ‘Further Investigation’ in cognizable cases.

 

The cases of Tara Singh vs State and Randhir Singh Rana vs State (Delhi Administration) emphasized that police officers can continue ‘Further Investigation’ without magistrate permission but can seek it prudently.

 

Before taking cognizance, as per Bhagwant Singh vs Commissioner of Police, the magistrate can order ‘Further Investigation’ using Section 156 (3), Section 155 (2), or Section 173 (8) CrPC. The judgment of Reeta Nag vs the State of West Bengal was overruled by Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali and AmrutbhaiShambhubhai Patel, which upheld the magistrate’s power to order ‘Further Investigation’ before taking cognizance.

 

After taking cognizance, Kishan Lal vs DharmendraBafna allowed the magistrate to order ‘Further Investigation,’ while Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel held the opposite. The conflict was resolved in Vinubhai Haribhai Malviyavs State of Gujarat, establishing that a fair trial under Article 21 allows for ‘Further Investigation’ after the police report is filed if it serves the interests of justice.

 

The court emphasized that Article 21’s significance must be considered when interpreting the CrPC.