Statement Of Co-Accused Given To Police During Investigation Hit By Section 162 CrPC, Cannot Be Used As Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The High Court held that reliance on a co-accused’s statement recorded by police during investigation is impermissible, reaffirming that such statements are hit by Section 162 of the CrPC and cannot constitute legally admissible evidence.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that a statement made by a co-accused to the police during investigation is inadmissible in evidence, as it is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and therefore and cannot be used as a piece of evidence.
The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court in a case involving allegations of land purchase through forged documents.
A Bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) observed: “…statement made by co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. It was also held that the confession made by the accused is inadmissible because of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
Senior Advocate R.L. Sood appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Ajay Kochhar, Advocate Rajiv Sirkeck and Deputy Advocate General Ajit Sharma appeared for the respondents.
Background
The case stemmed from a complaint alleging that one of the accused had purchased parcels of land in Shimla by attaching forged agriculturist certificates to sale deeds. According to the complaint, the certificates had been fabricated to evade restrictions under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, which prohibits non-agriculturists from purchasing agricultural land in the State.
An FIR was registered, and following investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Govinder Singh and others for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the IPC.
The Trial Court, however, found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the documents, and the evidence was insufficient to prove forgery. The accused were acquitted. The Sessions Court upheld the acquittal on appeal.
The petitioner then approached the High Court, contending that the Courts below had failed to appreciate evidence relating to forged certificates and statements made during the investigation.
Court’s Observations
The High Court observed that there was no legally admissible evidence against the accused, as the prosecution’s reliance rested substantially on what the Investigating Officer stated had been told to him by another accused during interrogation. The Court made it clear that such statements are inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC.
The Bench reiterated that statements of a co-accused recorded by the police cannot be used against another accused. The Court further highlighted that it is “impermissible to rely upon the statement of the Investigating Officer regarding what was told to him during the investigation” and affirmed that the acquittal of the accused was rightly recorded by the Trial Court and upheld by the Appellate Court.
Conclusion
Concluding that there was no legally admissible evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offences, the Court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the acquittals recorded by the Trial and Appellate Courts.
Cause Title: Tejinder Singh v. Govinder Singh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:21728)
Appearances
Petitioner: Sr. Adv. R.L. Sood with Adv. Y.P. Sood
Respondents: Sr. Adv. Ajay Kochhar with Adv. Varun Chauhan, Adv. Rajiv Sirkeck, Adv. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General