AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 231 wordsShah, J.—In this case I have admitted the statement of the accused made before the Coroner.
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
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.
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.