DO ACCUSED HAVE A RIGHT TO GET COMPLAINANT'S STATEMENT BEFORE CHARGE-SHEET?

 

  Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, Advocate, Legal, Law,

 

Accused is one, against whom there are any criminal allegations. Correctness of such allegations are yet to be tested on Judicial Touchstone.

 

During the course of investigation, Judicial Magistrate have a Right to Record the Statement (including confession) of either of the Parties u/s 164 of Criminal Procedure Code.

 

The above Question is answered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Matter of A Vs State of U.P. (decided on 08-10-2020 - Criminal Appeal 659 of 2020 ) by concluding that

 

“No person is entitled to a copy of statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code till the appropriate orders are passed by the court after the charge-sheet is filed. The right to receive a copy of such statement will arise only after cognisance is taken and at the stage contemplated by Sections 207 and 208 of the Code and not before."

 

Such a statement can also be used while deciding his bail application. So the situation will arise that “A person will be refused bail on the basis of some statement, of which he has no knowledge and therefore he cannot even counter”. Is it not alarming that only on allegation, a man has to loose his independence?

 

In case, you need any clarification/ assistance/ help, please feel free to contact me on my whatsapp number. I will be happy if you can leave your comments.



My Google Map Location


Location: Delhi, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BORROWER LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST EVEN WHEN LENDER REFUSES TO ACCEPT PAYMENT

Image
      The Common understanding is if Lender has refused to accept the repayment of Loan, then the Borrower’s Liability to pay the interest ceases from the date of such refusal. However, this does not seems to be the correct proposition of Law.  In an recent judgment titled Balwinder Singh Vs. Mithoot Finance (P) Limited and Ors Ld National Consumer Dispute REdressal Commission (NCDRC), (Revision Petition No. 2194 of 2015, Decided On: 23.07.2020 ) refused to accept the argument of the Borrower that he has tendered to repay and imposed an interest on the borrower even for the period subsequent to the said offer to repay.   While coming to this conclusion , LD NCDRC relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors. , II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) has observed as under:-  “9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal...
Read more

ARE ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF SECTION 65B EVIDENCE ACT, CERTIFICATE?

Image
           Electronic Evidence plays a vital role in any trial – Civil or Criminal. As per Common understanding Electronic Evidence is inadmissible, if it is not accompanied with Section 65B Certificate. Thereby debarring good evidence because of lack of Section 65B Certificate.   Law on this aspect is re-visited by Supreme Court and it is held as under:-   • If Original Electronic Evidence is produced, there is no need of Section 65B Certificate. However, copies of Original Electronic Evidence will require Section 65B Certificate.    • Electronic Evidence cannot be proved as Secondary Evidence as per Evidence Act.   • Section 65A and 65B of Evidence Act is a complete code in itself.    • Concerned Court can relax the production of Section 65B Certificate to the Person who is NOT in possession of device from which electronic evidence is produced.    Case Law - Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao ...
Read more

BAIL ORDER AFTER CONVICTION – COURT MUST STATE GROUNDS

Image
     Normally, in Criminal Appeals, High Court grants bail/ Suspension of Sentence by short and cryptic orders. i.e. without discussing the offence, evidence and the grounds on which bail/ suspension of sentence is made out. It is commonly understood that Bail/ Suspension of Sentence is the Complete discretion of the Judge concerned.    In a recent judgment of Preet Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh decide by Supreme Court on August 14, 2020, this popular presumption (Bail/ Suspension of Sentence is the complete discretion of the Judge concerned) was stuck down and Bail Order was set aside because High Court has failed to discuss and make out the grounds for grant of Bail.    In the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that  In considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie err...
Read more