 So, good evening everybody sorry for the small interruptions which are which have happened anyway some now so far as the confessions law relating to confessions is concerned there is a paradigm shift in our country over the recent years. And how what is actually admissible in court how the confessions have to be recorded by the police and what all precautions they have to take. Now if you look at it see the law relating to confessions developed first in England during the 1600s see in fact if you go back in history now which is which I had an occasion to read this confessions of guilt from torture to Miranda by two great authors that is that is George C. Thomas and Richard A. Leo. In fact they give an instance of a prisoner being examined for a horrid murder in England in somewhere in 1832. So in 1832 the magistrate magistrate clerks tells him that he is not required to confess and if you confess whatever you tell us will be recorded and it will be used against you and you are under no obligation to confess. Now 1832 England during the reign of Victoria Queen Victoria was a very powerful country in fact it was expanding itself it was a confident country and they never thought that there is an internal or external threat of a great nature and therefore the police when they were investigating offenses including threats against his state they were a little soft on the prisoners and torture had come to an end in England after John Filton's case you know there was no torture was not permitted in English courts and the evidence involuntary confessions the evidence was not received by the jury as substantive evidence. Now now you look at 2004 2004 is immediate aftermath of the 9-11 in USA C2 airplanes went and hit the twin World Trade Center towers and it collapsed thousands of people died in America and the terrorists and other their accomplices were nabbed and they were incarcerated in a place known as Gontenomo Bay and that was during the Bush administration. During the Bush administration there was an internal memo by the Bush administration which was later leaked by the Obama government you know there were several methods of torturing prisoners in Gontenomo Bay to extract confessions for two purposes one is for investigation and other to use them other to use it against them if suppose there is a trial against them. Now one was to keep them in a fetal position in a closed space and they will put insect in that they will say that this insect is a poisonous one it's going to bite and the prisoner will not be able to move then they used to another technique known as water boarding water boarding is in a slanting position head down a prisoner will try will be tied to a bench and a cold cloth will be put on his face and slowly they will pour water and after sometime the prisoner will feel that he is drowning and then they used to extract confessions. Now we all know and the later in this authorities and other psychologists said that whatever you extract out of confessions if you I mean sorry torture the confessions extracted by torture are unreliable if you torture a person to a certain limit he will confess to anything anything and therefore most of the confessions they found were unreliable and John Paul Stevens famous judgment in Hamdan versus Rumsfeld Rumsfeld is the secretary of defense during the Bush years. So in America also they said this Gontenau Bay procedure is illegal and even prisoners who are tried when they are tried by the American justice system whatever be the nature even if they are enemy combatants if they are being if they are tried they are entitled to the protection contained in the American constitution that is against self incrimination. So this principle of protection against self incrimination you find in our constitution itself and it started in 1800s in England later Stevens evidence act contains a great aspect of that because in India we have got greater protection than what you find in America or England because any confession made to the police under section 25 is it because no confession is made to the police not even a statement given by witness to the police except for the purpose of contradiction under 145 is admissible in court. Now it is very clear there is no doubt about it because now this is a twin position this is a position in India so far as confession to the police are concerned. Now I will come to the derivative use of confessions which is the more important topic today which I propose to discuss with you and also the manner in which derivative use of confessions is proceeded by the courts. Now let us first look at the state of confession in old England later in America in America what happened is after the Jim Crow southern states there used to be a hell of a lot of torture of black Americans and because of this segregation laws and the mindset of the investigating agencies there the tortured confessions many a times were admitted into evidence and where and the black litigants most of them who had been tortured and their confessions extracted by third degree methods were convicted and there was a big backlash against this method in the United States. Now several decisions later years in the US Supreme Court they refused to accept the confession extracted by torture and there was an inquiry by the judge whether the torture has been applied and whether the at that point of time because it is jury trial in America jury are excluded from the while the judges considering the question of admissibility of confessions and if it is the judge finds that it is admissible then the jury are called back and they are able to listen to the deposition of witnesses. Now in 1952, 1952 was a watershed in the American year I mean so far as the American Supreme Court is concerned Fred Winston was the Chief Justice in 1952. In fact we have these Jim Crow the American United States of America had these Jim Crow segregation laws in Mississippi, Missouri and all the southern states and that was upheld by the US Supreme Court and it was challenged in Brown versus Board of Education and it was pending in the Supreme Court and John Marshall was arguing the case and the Earl Warren's biography that is justice for all tells us that when Fred Winston was the Chief Justice and the US Supreme Court was hearing this the situation was that the Jim Crow's law segregation was going to be upheld by a 5-4 majority or descending judges that is the Roosevelt great judges Douglas Frankfurter then Hugo Black and Jackson Robert Jackson they were the descending judges and the other five including Chief Justice Winston Fred Winston were going to uphold the segregation laws then what happened is Fred Winston Chief Justice Winston had a heart attack and he died so midway this was stopped it had to be re-heard before a new Chief Justice and President Eisenhower was the general who was the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces during the Normandy assault against the Hitler's forces he later became the President of the United States in 1952 and Richard Nixon was his Vice President the Earl Warren who was then the Governor of California was straight away appointed as the Chief Justice of the United States of America in fact in America it is like that because the President appoints Senate confirms and the person becomes the Chief Justice and Earl Warren was a great man Earl Warren heard this it is called the Warren Court usually American Supreme Courts are known by the Chief Justice's Courts Warren Court Burger Court before that Vincent Court and all that now Fred this the Brown versus Board of Education they struck down the segregation laws which created two carriages one for black and one for white in America and then that was the wonderful thing was it was 90 it was a unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court that shows the exquisite leadership and Justice for all the book regarding Earl Warren says that Earl Warren changed the interrogation rooms in American police stations he in fact he was a very liberal judge he bought this Miranda warnings into the law if you see American movies you will see a policeman arresting a person and telling him that you are not required to say anything anything said by you will be used against you in the Court of Law and if you don't want the arrested accused and if you extract a confession necessarily that becomes inadmissible in court due to the Miranda warnings this is the first stage Warren Court in fact Miranda warnings are celebrated because you see it in movies and Miranda warnings are now the law in America even though subtle changes have been brought about in that matter still Miranda warning stays but and then you know also you know Warren not only overruled Brown versus Board of Education brought in Miranda warnings Ernesto Escobar's case and then Gideon versus Wendwright Gideon versus Wendwright is the decision where you have a right to seek the assistance of a council during interrogation that is the it was it became the duty of the Justice Administration system to provide a council for indigent litigants who are not able to get a council now after Gideon versus Wendwright in our country also this there was in all common law countries this has had a reverberating influence this Warren Warren Court's influence was always throughout now you find the constitutional principles which we find in our constitution or also the the rule against self-incrimination contained rule against self-incrimination contained in article 23 of the constitution began to stay in our country now I'll come back to our our system and the distinction between the American system American system if you there is no Miranda warning it is not admissible and there are other built in built in defenses so far as interrogations are fair trial is concerned our country is different Stephen had a complete mistrust of our police so Stephen's commentary book by his autobiography also says a passage when he was traveling in India in some village a police officer had told him that the policemen they don't go out in the sun under this heat and search for evidence on the contrary they rub red chili powder into the poor devil size and extract confessions so this Stephen said this kind of a thing should not happen in India and he had a great mistrust so what he did was he brought in section 25 in the evidence and section 25 says no confession given to a police officer is admissible whatever it is now in England also there is a built in safeguard that confessions extracted by coercion are not admissible in evidence but there is a trial within a trial to find out whether the confessions are extracted by coercion or not so far as our country is concerned there is an there is an inbuilt check on the confessions nothing is admissible but not only that see 161 and 162 of the CRPC there also there is a check on the police power because police can make anybody say anything in our country because of the great power they had during before the inception of the constitution after the inception of the constitution now what was important was the for Stephen that this kind of statements made to the police officers should not be admitted in court during investigation so he brought in 162 in the CRPC so it can so any statement made to the police officer during the course of investigation can only be used for contradiction as contemplated under 145 can't be used for operation now you look at this it is a complete safeguard so far as statements given to the police are concerned so there is a complete embargo so and then now these are the twin things which gives accused protection from undue police pressure now so far as confessions are concerned why it is not admitted there are two reasons one is we consider all human beings because they have their own dignity if you make a person if you torture a person if you subjugate a person there is an affront on his dignity so there is a question of dignity and that is why confessions made extracted by torture to prevent torture they that there is a bar against admission of confessions second it is it is inherent in the level suppose I am tortured I am a very weak person if I am tortured I will even say that the parliament attack case I was also involved because to save myself from torture I will say that is how that is why these then there is a crime control aspect of it but nonetheless even though there is a crime control aspect in our country and all in all common law jurisprudence in all countries where there is common law jurisprudence we don't permit nobody permits torturing an individual in the extracting confession now we have article 23 of the constitution their protection against self-incrimination now look at this confessions are completely barred can't admit it good but then there is what is contained derivative use of confessions derivative use of confessions I will just demonstrate you know there is this book with me in fact now let us assume that I have a 500 ruby note and then I am placing it in this book and I am telling you look here let us assume that some of you are policemen so I am telling you that I have placed a 500 ruby note inside this book and then if you are a policeman what will you what you will do is you will examine the book turn the pages and find a 500 ruby note in the book based on my statement so what does it follow three things first is that the information given by me is reliable that I have placed a 500 ruby note in this book that is the main gist of section 27 then secondly there is the authorship I am the one who has placed it because my statement to that to that defect is admissible thirdly the police officer the statement is confirmed only when the police officer turns the pages of the book and finds the 100 ruby note suppose the 100 ruby note is not there it is assumed which is not there when you check what what it follows is that my statement is underlying it is not there is no confirmation there is no attraction of section 27 now there is a raging debate or whether mental element is admissible there is nothing like that you see this was first enunciated in Warwick shore's case in England Jane versus Warwick shore stolen articles based on the confession statement were recovered from a place and they said this derivative use the statement given by the accused that she had placed these stolen articles in a particular place and then when the investigating officer goes there and gets this stolen article what follows is that the information given by the prisoner that stolen article that articles are placed in a particular place is proved the fact whether it is stolen or not is not directly related to the discovery of the article and therefore that part is not admissible so what is confirmed is only the fact that I have placed 500 ruby note inside this book if I say that I have one big pocket he had stolen this and given it to me is it admissible or if I say that I have stolen this 500 ruby note from another person so that does not directly deal with the discovery of the fact that I have placed the 100 ruby note in the 100 ruby note in the book so what is distinctly relative to the discovery of the fact alone is admissible the past user of the note how I got the note is not admissible this Warwick-Scholl's definition that what is distinctly related alone is admissible was carried forward in another case Lockhart's case and later in the commentary by Stephen bodily lifted the victim laid down in that particular decisions and incorporated it into our evidence and that is where we find section 27 because that is a proviso to section 25, 26 now the question is under what provision does the am I going very fast because hello okay suppose because if you go very fast you know the time within the time frame and other things I don't want to rush things no that's fine how much time do I have so if you feel we can do it 45 minutes each in two parts it's fine rather than rushing up because you are taking the sessions in a better way just no slow and then the so Stephen had bodily lifted these things from these English decisions and then you find it in our evidence law now the question remains you know police officer is investigating the section says when any fact is deposed to us discovered so the deposition is given by the police officer and the information by the accused is supplied to the police officer police officer is deposing in court regarding the information given by the accused person accused of offense and then based on that he is discovering the fact what is the fact he is seeking whether is ascertaining whether there is confirmation of this information given by the accused person accused of offense he should be in the custody only then the police can question him so if the math the if there is no confirmation confirmation I said is a discovery of the note in the book now notes are printed by the RBI like you find Pulikuri Kota's statement knives were discovered centuries ago police officer does not discover the knife police officer only confirms the information given by the accused that he had placed in Pulikuri Kota's case it was a spear now in this my example it is a note 500 rupee note he only confirms the fact that a 500 rupee note is placed inside a book and that is I have said that I have placed it so much of that information which distinctly that is what the section says so much of that information has distinctly that distinctly relates to the confirmation by discovery of the 500 rupee note that alone is admissible I think I have made myself clear nothing else is admissible other than that suppose I say that I got the note from gambling or I got the note by stealing doing pickpocketing this is not this has nothing to do with the confirmation of the statement given by me the confirmation of the statement given by me is the only fact that I have placed this 500 rupee note inside the book suppose I say that the 500 rupee note which I had stolen from so and so and so I had placed in the book the fact that I had stolen the 500 rupee note has nothing to do with the confirmation of the information given by me because the that has to be proved separately but what it is the police officer discovers only the fact that I have placed the note in 500 rupee note in the book so that much alone is admissible and that is what Warwick-Scholl's case says and that is what Lockhart's case says and then that is what is incorporated into our evidence act the first of the decisions is Babu Lal's case by a celebrated judge in India that is Justice Mahmood there is a book by Justice about Justice Mahmood he was the first Indian judge he was actually a sub-judge in subordinate judge in Alawad district judiciary and the the Chief Justice of Alawad High Court happened to see his judgments and his great analytical mind and he was straight away elevated to the Alawad High Court and many of his judgments are locus classicus and he is a greatly respected person Justice Mahmood now you find Babu Lal's case and later there are several decisions of our then there is Sukhan versus Emperor that is why Shadilal Jay that was by nine judges of the Lahore High Court then we have Ganuchandra by John Bumond later John Bumond himself wrote the Pulikuri Kota's case where the law was settled and laid down as to what is admissible under section 27 now this I am not going into in detail regarding the legal aspects of this matter because we most of you must be knowing about this and Ganuchandra's case John Bumond's case regarding the fact discovered was confirmed or John Bumond himself when he went to the Pravee council wrote the Pulikuri Kota's case and later there are several Indian decisions on this point now the matter which I wanted to talk to you about this under what provision is the police recording the confessions now police can question and accused extract police can question the witness there are two things both the questioning of the police questioning by the police of a witness and questioning by the police of the accused both are done under section 161 for the CRPC so much we have we have to understand because see 161 of the CRPC is very clear because 161 does not contemplate does not contemplate I repeat getting the signature of the witness who has stated a matter before the police or it does not contemplate an accused who gives a statement under 161 to sign the statement made by see 161 is very clear I will just read that portion any police officer making an investigation under this chapter so and so may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case such person shall be bound to answer truly that is subsection 2 then subsection 3 says the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of examination under this section and if he does so he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement is required then 162 says there is an embargo there statements to police not to be signed not to be seen no statement made by any person to the police officer in the course of an investigation under this chapter shall if reduced into writing be signed by the person making it nor shall any such statement or any record thereof whether in a police diary or otherwise or any such part of the statement or record be used for any purpose save us here in after providing so there is a complete interdiction so far as the provisions under section 161 or 162 are concerned from getting the signature of the person who gave the statement under section 161 now I am not taking you to the other part of it because suppose dying declaration is recorded under 161 if this subsection 2 were not there it would not be admissible similarly the discovery part of it contained under section 27 that also would not have been admissible so what happened is CRPC there is a subsection 2 161 162 2 nothing in this section shall deem to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of section 32 of the evidence that is dying declaration or to affect section 27 so these two matters are saved so far a statement given to the police which results in the derivative use I am using the word derivative uses section 27 is a derivative use of the confession direct use is impossible derivative use is possible so again I am saying this is 162 says that even in the matter of derivative use no signature shall be obtained either from the accused or any person from whom a statement is taken by the police now we are in a peculiar situation we have 161 there is no other provision in the CRPC which empowers the police investigating agency to record the statement of witnesses and the statement of accused is there is only 161 and 162 154 is the FI statement FIR so that is a different thing altogether that is something which investigation commences on the basis of the 154 FIR that is that is that can be used for operation under 157 but not statement given under 161 because that can only be used for the purpose of contradiction is contemplated under 145 now we have a peculiar situation now in our which is now introduced into our jurisprudence regarding confessions which is contrary to the stipulations or the embargo contained in section 162 of the CRPC now look at this now there was a decision called the Jaqaran Singh's case I would like you to read that that is Jaqaran Singh Jaqaran Singh versus state of Punjab meaning it is pronounced Jaqaran Singh which is that is AIR 1990 95 Supreme Court 2345 that is reported in the SEC also 1999 volume 3 SEC 507 so there for the first time Supreme Court said that absence of signature or thumb impression of the accused on the disclosure statement which this is called as disclosure statement under section 27 detracts materially from the authenticity and reliability of the disclosure statement now this is a strange observation the Ben said either there should be a thumb impression or a signature if that is not there in the disclosure statement which is contemplated under section 27 we cannot rely on that but then this was contrary to the settled proposition and also contrary to the provision contained in CRPC that is 160 1 and 162 so the Supreme Court on 25th April 1950 1995 after the main decision Suomoto reviewed this observation Suomoto reviewed this observation that was a they said 161 does not contemplate obtaining the signature of the accused 162 there is an embargo against getting a signed statement that accused this disclosure statement given by the and therefore they say that there is a this has to be reviewed and strangely you know this review Suomoto review on 25th April 1995 was not published by any any law journal no law journal then Justice Karpaka Vinayagam of Madras High Court he commented adversely on the manner in which the law journals in this country are working in a judgment I don't just have this with me in a judgment he said that the law journals are doing disservice to the legal profession why not publishing this but in our judicial academy which I was additional director there for some time we had in our judicial vision we had published this Suomoto review and Supreme Court later that is state of Rajasthan versus Tejara that is AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1776 there Justice Justice K.T. Thomas he held the bench consisting of Justice K.T. Thomas that held that provisions of 162 1 CRPC in peremptory terms as held that there is a prohibition due to which law requires that a statement made before the investigating officer should not be signed by the witness so therefore you cannot get a signature either of the accused or so because it is under 161 2 and section 27 that was explained investigating officer is not obliged to obtain the signature but his lordship also added one thing suppose in that unwittingly a signature is obtained that does not mean that the it is inadvisable but the police are expected to follow the mandate of section 162 so this is the law there is no doubt about it this is the law on the point now he will come to later the judgements you know after the before the inception of the constitution there was doubt whether this derivative use derivative use of section to confessions obtained by coercion now that is derivative uses under section 27 because you are using it to derive something else not directly so whether that is admissible or not so the the question was there was section 24 of the evidence act then in 11 judges after Keshavan the Bharati's case this was before Keshavan the Bharati this is the largest quorum which sat in the supreme court 11 judges in Kathikalu Ogad versus Kathikalu Ogad's case that is A.R. 1961 supreme court 1808 Kathikalu Ogad versus state of Bombay A.R. 1961 supreme court 1808 considered this aspect whether if there is a coerced confession whether derivative use is possible or not now the question in that there were three points urged before the supreme court it was pertaining to the meaning of the term to be a witness appearing in article 23 of the constitution you know article 23 of the constitution that is the embargo against a self-incrimination no one can be a witness against himself because no one should be the deluded instrument of his own torture and evidence extracted so that was what they were considering the word to what does the what is the meaning of the word to be a witness the narrow argument was that to be a witness only meant testifying in court because witness you know you have to testify and therefore that alone is prevented by article 23 the other argument was that it included everything confession given to the police statement given to other persons during the investigation all verbal and non-verbal statements which comes from the mind knowledge which is out of that is which is coming from the innards of your mind that includes that is taken that that is contained in the term to be a witness now the third argument was that the to be a witness included even giving blood samples hair samples or handwriting suppose you are asked to write something your blood is extracted for DNA analysis and other things then again that is you are being a witness against yourself but this the larger that was rejected by the supreme court supreme court said that giving DNA blood sample and other things do not come within the scope and ambit of the word to be a witness only voluntary statement which comes from the innards of your mind that alone is encompassed in the term to be a witness so far as to be a witness is concerned it is not narrow not just deposing in court now they said in so far as this aspect is concerned even acquires to confession the made to the police officer and based on that if you discover something that also is hit so supreme court was very clear about it in 1961 supreme court that even derivative use of the court's confession is barred later you know this was this came up for one beautifully written judgment that is 2010 7 sec 263 selvi versus 2010 7 sec 263 that is selvi and others versus state of karnataka that is regarding brain mapping narco analysis polygraph test so these are all you get involuntary statements based on this and then whether derivative use is possible supreme court followed the dictum of 11 judges they said if voluntarily you have to first you cannot involve you cannot coerce you cannot make a person to subject subject him to narco analysis unless he is willing and also be MP test all this required the consent of the accused and also if without consent if any anything is extracted then even the derivative use of that is barred so this is this was by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan they had considered all these aspects and they also considered the questions whether see there are the investigation in certain matters would be conducted by persons who are not police officers so this 20 section 25 will not apply to persons who are not police officers but then the supreme court later has taken a different view from Rajkumar Garwal's case because they have said that Rajkumar Garwal's case they said that the single litmus test to find out whether a person is a police officer or not is the power to file a final report as contemplated under 1732 to CRPC but supreme court has taken a slightly different view by Justice Rohit Nariman's case judgment is there I am not going into those details because the positive time but they considered this aspect of Miranda warnings in such cases the in Selvi's case and in such matters you know it would be advisable for the investigating agency to reward to Miranda warnings enunciated by Earl Warren in anyway we will come back to this these two twin aspects now there are two other there are several some one more thing is read into section derivative views that is section 27 that even section 27 disclosure statement after Kathikalovad's case and several other cases has to be voluntary has to be voluntary but then there is the decision which I told you in Jaakaran Singh's case in Teja Singh's case that it seems it is under 161 you are not required to obtain the signature of a witness or obtain the signature of the accused in a disclosure statement now we come to the later that is why emerging trends the law has is changing this Jaakaran Singh judgment this the Swamouta review has not been seen by anybody in fact in fact it has not been placed before the supreme court nor is Teja Singh's case now we find that the latest decision of three judges that is Ramanand Aliya's Nanderal Bharati versus state of Uttar Pradesh which has been commented on commented upon by Justice Ram Kumar in his article in live law I am not going into the correctness or otherwise of the article so I am only on the question whether the there is a paradigm shift or there is a new emerging trend in the in the manner in which the disclosure statements of the accused are to be recorded by the police now look I will take the I will take you to the relevant paragraphs now they say in paragraph 53 of the AR decision that is what they deal with paragraph 53 now how much of the information received from the accused may be paragraph 53 they extract section 27 and they say if it is to say that the investigating office of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon along with his bloodstained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call two independent witnesses at the police station itself once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to the pointing out the place where the said to have hidden the weapon when the accused while in custody makes such a statement before two independent witnesses the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchinama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with the law the first part of the panchinama for the purpose of section 27 evidence is always drawn at the police station in the presence of two independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offense or any other article used in the commission has been hidden once the first part of the panchinama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and two independent witnesses would proceed to the place as may be led by the accused if from that particular place anything like a weapon or offense or blood stain clothes or other articles are discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchinama this is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchinama as contemplated under section 27 then the learned judges they they then the paragraph 56 they say the requirement of law that needs to be fulfilled fulfilled before accepting the evidence of discovery is that by proving the contents of panchinama investigating officer in his deposition is obliged to then the now look at this the the problem is this is all done under 161 and you draw a panchinama make the what is happening in a panchinama witnesses will put their signatures accused will be there and this is not actually contemplated under section 162 of the CRPS but then the supreme court is on another another aspect of the matter what they are they want to ensure that the the statement of was made by the express by the accused on his own free will and volition that he will point out the so that is why the supreme court observes that two witnesses ought to be there and then panchinama should be signed by two witnesses panchinama this taking of the seizure of the weapon should be witnessed by the two witnesses and this is how the supreme court says that this is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw discovery panchinama is contemplated under section 27 then 54 they say if no witnesses are present at the time of discovery or if no person has agreed to effects his signature in the document it is difficult to lay down as a proposition of law that the documents are prepared by the police officer might be treated as taint or discovery evidence found under level this possibility also the supreme court is discussing now this is a thing which is not contemplated under section 161 or 162 but in its endeavor to ensure that confessions may are voluntary they are actually drawing a new what to say path now there is a later decision again in the supreme court 20 23 SCC online 1202 that again is by a bench of three judges where again this judgment is dealt with and it gives us a lot of room for confusion you see I shall again read that the relevant paragraph then there again the supreme court is going into preparation of panchinama and paragraph 30 they are saying it was held that a panchinama would be inadmissible in court if law if it is recorded by the investigating officer in a manner violative of section 162 CRPC as a procedure requires the investigating officer to record the search proceedings as if they were written by the punch witnesses themselves and it should not be recorded in the form of examining witnesses as laid down in section 161 CRPC this court concluded by stating that the entire panchinama would not be liable to be discarded in the event of deviation from the procedure and if deviation occurred due to practical impossibility then the same should be recorded by the investigating officer so as to enable him to answer during the time of examination as a witness in court recently we are referring to the ramanan's case observed that the requirement of the law needs to be fulfilled before accepting the evidence of discoveries by proving the contents of the panchinama and the investigating in this deposition is obliged in law to prove the contents of the panchinama it was further observed that it is only if the investigating officer has successfully proved the contents of the discovery panchinama in accordance with the law that the prosecution would be justified and relying upon the evidence in court it was held that in order to enable the court it is necessary that the exact words attributed that is no see here again these two passages these two decisions add to a lot of confusion probably now what is the difference if a panchinama punch witness write something in the in their own handwriting and hand it over to the investigating officer does it make any difference from 161 it is a statement again given to the investigating officer does the does it make it admissive the does it contemplate again in the panchinama which is a statement given to the if they are right and give the investigating officer something or if the punch witnesses say something in the investigating officer writes it down and get the signature of the panchas what is the point in all this so this is a very now they are alluding to section 100 in this for this year search warrant section 27 discovery has nothing to do with the search warrant issued by the court or the search by the police officer 27 police is going there to confirm the information given by the person accused of an offense now this again what I am saying is jacarand since decision there was a deviation which was promptly detected by the supreme court themselves and they they themselves so much to review it but now so many matters are brought into evidence law of evidence which is not contemplated by the neither the evidence act or the CR piece and all evidence which is procured everything even the investigations will go haywire unless these kind of prescriptions are to be brought in by legislation and then circulated to the police and not by judicial decisions which are examination I have not found any decision prior to this 22 Supreme Court 5273 about such a manner of recording of section 27 disclosure statements which again is contrary to the settle the proposition of law entheja seeing now this is what I have to tell you this is a new emerging trend and of course we have to follow the supreme court later supreme court decisions which are made by Bench of free urges and this will be the pattern which follows which is which would be followed by the courts now I am not going into other matters now this is a new emerging trend as I told you in the matter pertaining to the confession to the police and the derivative use of the confession is concerned as contemplated under section 27. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Rindavanath for sharing your insights and despite the fact that you missed the date and yet you have been able to sorry explain the thing with such a perspective it shows that how thorough your knowledge is thank you on behalf of all the team and tomorrow do stay connected with us Justice Paranjit Singh Dhaliwal would be taking a session with us on the contract act and what are the implications under the standard format contracts thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed much better