Power of State Government or Central Government to exclude certain persons from operation of section 302

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Mohmed Amin @ Amin C. R. M. Shaikh vs C. B. I Tr. Its Director

   Supreme Court of India 18 Nov 2008 Binding (SC) with Strong Precedential Value on TADA Confessions and Conspiracy L Reportable

   Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 268, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When confessions are recorded by police officers of Superintendent of Police rank or above in accordance with Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules, 1987, such confessions are substantive evidence admissible against the maker as well as co-accused, abettors, or conspirators charged and tried in the same case. Even if an accused is acquitted of charges under the TADA Act, such confessions can be used for convicting him for offences under the Indian Penal Code or other enactments, provided the accused was tried jointly with TADA offences. The voluntary nature of confessions depends on the Court being satisfied that the requirements of Section 15 and Rule 15 were complied with, and when challenged by the accused, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove such compliance. Once the prosecution discharges this burden, the burden shifts to the accused to prove through evidence that the confession was not made voluntarily or was not truthful. Confessions do not require independent corroboration for conviction of the maker, though as a matter of prudence, courts may seek general corroboration for use against co-accused unless satisfied of the confession's probative value. Mere retraction of confession is not sufficient to reject it; the crucial question is whether the accused was subjected to coercion, threat, or undue influence at the time of confession-making. Guidelines laid down in earlier judgments like Kartar Singh, while advisable, are not mandatory legal requirements unless incorporated into the statutory Act or Rules.

   On this section: Court gave custody of accused to Investigating Officer; IO could produce them before SP for confession recording

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. O.p. Mishra vs The State Govt of Nct of Delhi

   High Court 23 Oct 2002 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 268, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A prison superintendent cannot be held liable for non-production of an under-trial prisoner when the prisoner is detained in another state's jail by judicial order of a competent court. The duty to produce a prisoner under Sections 267 and 270 of the Criminal Procedure Code is limited to prisoners within the superintendent's custody and control. When a prisoner is detained outside the superintendent's jurisdiction by judicial order, the superintendent is not guilty of non-compliance or dereliction of duty, and the court must appreciate the circumstances that make compliance impossible.

   On this section: Cited by petitioner as violated but not specifically analyzed in the judgment. Relates to prisoner production procedures.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.