BIHARI MANJHI AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

BIHARI MANJHI AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

The confessional statement recorded by the Police Inspector, allegedly under Section 15 of TADA, did not satisfy necessary procedural safeguards: it was not sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, was produced for the first time after several years, and the police officers failed to identify the accused in court. No corroborative evidence existed against the co-accused. Thus, conviction based solely on such confession was impermissible.

Parties
Appellant: Bihari Manjhi; Appellant: Ramautar Dusadh @ Lakhan Dusadh; Appellant: Wakil Yadav; Appellant: Rajendra Paswan; Respondent: State of Bihar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment (final Disposition)
Outcome
Appeals allowed; convictions set aside and accused acquitted.
Legal Topics
Evidence, Confession, Procedure Under TADA, Identification, Admissibility of Confessional Statements
Criminal Law Evidence Confession Procedure Under TADA Identification Admissibility of Confessional Statements

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bihari Manjhi

Appellant

Ramautar Dusadh @ Lakhan Dusadh

Appellant

Wakil Yadav

Appellant

Rajendra Paswan

Appellant

State of Bihar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment (final Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confessional statement recorded by police under Section 15 of TADA Act meets the procedural requirements and can be relied upon for conviction
  2. 2 Whether failure to send the confessional statement to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and non-identification of accused in court makes the confession unreliable

Ratio Decidendi

The confessional statement recorded by the Police Inspector, allegedly under Section 15 of TADA, did not satisfy necessary procedural safeguards: it was not sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, was produced for the first time after several years, and the police officers failed to identify the accused in court. No corroborative evidence existed against the co-accused. Thus, conviction based solely on such confession was impermissible.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; convictions set aside and accused acquitted.

Orders

  • Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2001 are allowed.
  • Judgment and order convicting appellants set aside.