BALKISHAN A. DEVIDAYAL ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

BALKISHAN A. DEVIDAYAL ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC.

An officer of the Railway Protection Force conducting an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not a 'police officer' as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act; confessional or incriminating statements made to such officer are not excluded from evidence under that provision, and protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution does not apply unless there is a formal accusation in court or police complaint.

Parties
Appellant: Balkishan A. Devidayal; Respondent: State of Maharashtra; Petitioner: S. K. Gambhir, Miss Ram Rikhyani
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 July 1980
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal and Special Leave Petition / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Railway Protection Force, Confession Admissibility, Article 20(3) Self Incrimination, Meaning of 'police Officer' Under Evidence Act
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Evidence Law Railway Protection Force Confession Admissibility Article 20(3) Self Incrimination Meaning of 'police Officer' Under Evidence Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balkishan A. Devidayal

Appellant

State of Maharashtra

Respondent

S. K. Gambhir, Miss Ram Rikhyani

Petitioner

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal and Special Leave Petition / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Railway Protection Force Officer is a 'police officer' under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act
  2. 2 Whether confessions to RPF officers are inadmissible under Section 25 Evidence Act and Section 162 CrPC
  3. 3 Whether person arrested by RPF is 'accused of an offence' under Article 20(3) of the Constitution

Ratio Decidendi

An officer of the Railway Protection Force conducting an inquiry under Section 8(1) of the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 is not a 'police officer' as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act; confessional or incriminating statements made to such officer are not excluded from evidence under that provision, and protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution does not apply unless there is a formal accusation in court or police complaint.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Case sent back to trial court for further proceedings in accordance with law
  • Accused-appellant to be supplied relevant documents and may inspect other material collected by inquiry officer