Skip to content


Sirajbhai Gulambhai Vs. State of Gajarat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtGujarat High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1966CriLJ1541; (1966)GLR119
AppellantSirajbhai Gulambhai
RespondentState of Gajarat
Cases ReferredEmperor v. Shivputraya
Excerpt:
- - when the accused person makes a statement under section 27 of the evidence act, and his statement is sought to be proved under section 27 of the evidence act, it should be clearly and carefully recorded by the police officer concerned in the actual words of the accused in the first person and it should not be paraphrased......mainly on a statement said to have been made by him and used in evidence under section 27 of the indian evidence act. when the accused person makes a statement under section 27 of the evidence act, and his statement is sought to be proved under section 27 of the evidence act, it should be clearly and carefully recorded by the police officer concerned in the actual words of the accused in the first person and it should not be paraphrased. if what the accused says is to be used in evidence, his own words should be proved and not a paraphrase of those words by some other persons. the same view has been taken in in re, athappa goundan ilr 1937 mad 695 at p. 728 : air 1937 mad 618 at p. 630 (fb). the same view has also been taken in emperor v. shivputraya air 1930 bom 244. this has not been.....
Judgment:

V.B. Raju, J.

1. The conviction of the appellant under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, in this case is based mainly on a statement said to have been made by him and used in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. When the accused person makes a statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and his statement is sought to be proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it should be clearly and carefully recorded by the Police Officer concerned in the actual words of the accused in the first person and it should not be paraphrased. If what the accused says is to be used in evidence, his own words should be proved and not a paraphrase of those words by some other persons. The same view has been taken in In re, Athappa Goundan ILR 1937 Mad 695 at p. 728 : AIR 1937 Mad 618 at p. 630 (FB). The same view has also been taken in Emperor v. Shivputraya AIR 1930 Bom 244. This has not been done in the present case. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are, therefore, set aside and the appeal is allowed.


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