The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Nanni Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (CRIMINAL REVISION No. 39 of 2021) upheld that a confessional statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which does not relate to discovery of a fact is inadmissible in evidence.
Facts of the case: On 6/12/2019 prosecutrix, who was a minor, aged about 15 years, lodged a report at PS Kesali, Distt. Sagar saying that about one and a half years ago after the death of her father, her mother co-accused Parvati Bai married co-accused Har Prasad Ahirwar, and thereafter, started living in the village Gourjhamar along with Harprasad. She along with her siblings also lived with them. In the summer of 2019, her mother Parvati and stepfather Harprasad got her married to co-accused Aman against her will. After her marriage for the first time, she stayed at Aman Ahirwar’s house located in the village of Bileki for 8 days. During that period, Aman Ahirwar used to rape her every day. Again she stayed at Aman’s house for for about 4 months. This time also Aman raped her every night, due to which she fell ill and her brother Neeraj took her from Aman’Âs house to village Khairana at his maternal uncle Harlal’s house. On such a report, police registered Crime no.321/2019 at PS Kesali, Distt. Sagar for the offences punishable under Sections 376 of the IPC and Sections 5,6, 16 & 17 of the POCSO Act and Sections 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and investigated the matter.
Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that there is no iota of evidence on record to show that the applicants were involved in the crime.They are the parents of the accused. Their names are neither mentioned in the FIR nor in the case diary statement of the prosecutrix. Even in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix and her case diary statement, it is not mentioned that the applicants were involved in the crime.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State argued that the applicants were also involved in the crime. Co-accused Aman was the son of the applicants and it iwas alleged that the applicants solemnized the marriage of their son Aman with the prosecutrix, who was minor and after marriage, the prosecutrix lived with co-accused Aman in the house of the applicants, where Aman used to commit rape with her
Judgment: The court was of the opinion that merely on the basis that applicants are the parents of co-accused Aman without any legal evidence it could not be assumed that the applicants were also involved in the crime. From the perusal of the charge sheet and the case diary statements of the prosecution witnesses, it was apparent that there is no legal evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Names of the applicants were not mentioned in the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix. Nothing had been stated by the prosecutrix against the applicants in her statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
Police also recorded the confessional statements of applicants and co-accused. But a confessional statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which does not relate to discovery of a fact is inadmissible in evidence. So, the confessional statements of the applicants recorded by the police were also not admissible in evidence against them. There was no other evidence on record to connect the applicants with the crime. Petition was allowed and applicants namely Nanni Bai and Bihari were discharged from the charges framed by the learned trial Court.
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY : SHUBHANGI CHAUDHARY