Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Azimkhan Zainkhan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberFifth Crimial Session: Case No. 13 of 1926
Judge
Reported in(1928)30BOMLR84; 110Ind.Cas.107
AppellantEmperor
RespondentAzimkhan Zainkhan
Excerpt:
.....on oath voluntarily made by suspect-due warning given by coroner-admissibility of the statement at the trial.;a statement on oath made voluntarily by a suspect during inquest proceedings before the comer and after warning given to him, is admissible at the trial of the accused for the offence. - [couto; m.l. pendse, jj.] in the first instance the order passed under s. 132(5) is an order of a summary nature and does not conclude the rights of the petitioners, because while passing the assessment order, it is always open to the petitioners to point out that the assets recovered in the search were not undisclosed to point out that the assetsrecovered in the search were not undisclosed income. secondly, the order passed under s. 132(5) is appealable under the provisions of the..........be admissible. there is no question here of any possible application of the proviso in section 132 of the indian evidence act. the statement is in terms voluntary, and in fact the accused (then the suspected person) wanted to make the statement which the coroner simply recorded. i see no reason why a statement of this nature should be inadmissible in evidence, nor is there any provision of law which renders it inadmissible.4. in the first case, which i have mentioned, mr. justice taraporewala recognises that if the accused wishes to make a etatement he might, and that otherwise, he is not bound to make any statement at all. i do not think that that ruling can possibly apply to this particular statement.
Judgment:

Shah, J.

1. In this case I have admitted the statement of the accused made before the Coroner.

2. An objection was raised as to its admissibility and I was referred to two recent cases: Emperor v. Kazi Dawood (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 79 and Emperor v. Ramnath Mahabir (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 111

3. Having regard to the manner in which this particular statement has been recorded by the Coroner, I feel no doubt that it is admissible in evidence. In view of the provisions of the last paragraph of Section 20 of the Coroners' Act (IV of 1871 as subsequently amended) the statement appears to me to be admissible. There is no question here of any possible application of the proviso in Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement is in terms voluntary, and in fact the accused (then the suspected person) wanted to make the statement which the Coroner simply recorded. I see no reason why a statement of this nature should be inadmissible in evidence, nor is there any provision of law which renders it inadmissible.

4. In the first case, which I have mentioned, Mr. Justice Taraporewala recognises that if the accused wishes to make a etatement he might, and that otherwise, he is not bound to make any statement at all. I do not think that that ruling can possibly apply to this particular statement.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //