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


1. Section 154 of the CrPC is mandatory, and the use of the word shall indicates the legislatures intent to eliminate police officer discretion in its application.


2. Information received under Section 154 must be entered in the police register, as long as it discloses the commission of a cognizable offense.


3. The information doesnt need to be credible or reasonable; it must only reveal the commission of a cognizable offense.


4. Police officers cannot conduct a preliminary inquiry before entering information unless it doesnt disclose a cognizable offense.


5. The possibility of filing a second FIR is permissible, provided the two FIRs refer to different offenses or persons.


6. Cross FIRs and FIRs based on counterclaims are allowed.


7. Second FIRs based on separate transactions or new discoveries are permissible.


8. Multiple FIRs based on the same cause of action are not allowed to stifle journalistic freedoms.


9. FIRs can be admissible as evidence if they relate to the circumstances of a persons death.


10. Delay in filing an FIR can be reasonable, depending on the situation.


11. Refusal to record a Zero FIR on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction is dereliction of duty.


12. The court should not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies in evidence.


13. Section 162 of the CrPC doesnt bar proof of all statements made during the period of investigation.


14. Section 162 does not affect the courts special powers under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.


15. The court should discard discrepancies that dont undermine the basic prosecution case.


16. Innocuous omissions and trivial discrepancies should be ignored.


17. A confession must admit the offense or substantially all the facts constituting it.


18. Relevant confessions dont require communication to others.


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.

Leave a Comment

× Need legal help?