Daily Passage Test for CLAT - Oct 23 MCQs & solutions Free

The passage provides that in Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, where the accused admitted his guilt before the police. The court held that such confession is of no value as confession of guilt to police is not admissible in court. Option (a) and (b) are incorrect as section 162 provides that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it. Further signature to a confession made to police does not make it admissible. Option (d) is incorrect because no such condition is provided in the passage.

The passage provides that Section 161 of the Code provides that any police officer making an investigation may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true and complete record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. A true and complete record means writing what the person actually said in its totality. Hence police officer cannot made a summary recording of the same. Hence option (a) is correct. Option (b) is incorrect as the procedure was not rightly followed. Option (c) and (d) are incorrect as the facts are not inferable from the passage or question.

The passage provides that in case Kartar Singh Vs state of Punjab, it was observed what section 164(2) of the Code requires that as soon as the accused intending to make confession is produced and before he is told he would be allowed time for reflection, the magistrate should explain him that it is not intended to make him an approver and that, he is not bound to make confession and warn him that, if he does so, anything said by him will be taken down and thereafter be used as evidence against him as evidence in relation to his complicity in the offence at the trial, that is to follow. Compliance of the same being mandatoxy and imperative, its noncompliance renders the confession inadmissible in evidence.

The passage provides that section 162 provides that no statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided. Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness. Hence statement I and II is true. Statement III is incorrect because for use by defence council to contradict him, permission of court is not required. Statement IV is incorrect as proviso is applicable only when person is brought as prosecution witness.

The passage provides that in case Kartar Singh Vs state of Punjab, it was observed that section 164(2) of the Code requires that as soon as the accused intending to make confession is produced and before he is told he would be allowed time for reflection, the magistrate should explain him that it is not intended to make him an approver and that, he is not bound to make confession and warn him that, if he does so, anything said by him will be taken down and thereafter be used as evidence against him as evidence in relation to his complicity in the offence at the trial, that is to follow. Hence statement under option (a), (b) and (c) can be inferred. However there is no mention of presence of witnesses to witness the signing of confession by the accused.