The ruling was passed in a rape and murder case where the only evidence available against the accused when the matter reached the High Court was a photocopy of a confession statement.
Notably, this confession statement was not signed by the accused (appellant) or the magistrate who was said to have recorded it.
A Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Budi Habung noted that if the confession statement has not been signed or proved by the magistrate who recorded it, the same cannot be treated as the true confessional statement by the accused under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
“As per 164 (4), the confessional statement of the accused person shall be signed by the person making the confession, but in the present case, the accused has not signed the said confessional statement. Non-compliance with provision of section 164 Cr.P.C has caused injury to the accused in his defence on merit and the same cannot be cured at the later stage. In view of the above, we are not in a position to accept the said document to be a true confessional statement of the accused,” the Court observed, while ordering the release of the accused man after 21 years of imprisonment.
Source: Barandbench
