14 July 2024

1. Confessional Statements Made Before Police not to Be Included In Charge Sheet

The Supreme Court held a significant view with respect to importance of confessional statement of the accused recorded by the police officers. The Court reiterated the non-admissibility of confessions made to police officers making reference to the section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and corresponding provision section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

The view was held while dealing with an appeal against Allahabad High Court’s judgment in case of Sanuj Bansal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the court directed that the trial courts must ignore confessional statements recorded by police officers if they form part of the charge-sheet.

Confession to Police Officer not Admissible

Confession made to a police officer is not admissible in court. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 23 of the New Evidence law i.e., Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.

Section 23 of the new law states that (1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

(2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him:

Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.

2. Supreme Court Orders BMW to Compensate Customer Rs. 50 Lakhs for Defective Vehicle

In matter titled as The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., while disposing of a 15-year-old cheating case pending against BMW India Pvt. Ltd. and certain members of its management, the Supreme Court directed BMW to make compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to GVR Infra Projects, in full and final settlement of the dispute.

Brief Background of the Case

GVR Infra Projects filed a criminal case against BMW India for cheating (under Sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code) in 2009 alleging supply of a defective car. In 2012, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the criminal proceedings against BMW, directing the company to provide a new car to the complainant.

Following the order of the High Court, BMW India offered to replace the defective vehicle, but the complainant refused and demanded a refund along with interest. The complainant then appealed the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court, while the State of Andhra Pradesh also filed a separate appeal against the High Court’s ruling.

Contention of Parties

The respondent, BMW India, contended before the Supreme Court, that the company was always ready to comply with the order of the High Court and had communicated with the complainant about returning the old car.

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the High Court’s direction to replace the vehicle, stating that the High Court should have limited its ruling to the quashing of the criminal case. However, the Supreme Court also noted that the manufacturer (BMW India) had not challenged the High Court’s order and had shown willingness to replace the defective car.

Decision of the Court

The Apex Court taking into consideration the nature of the dispute, which pertains solely to a defective vehicle, was of view that continuing and stretching the case would not serve the interests of justice and must necessarily come to an end. The Court stated while deciding to exercise its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to mandate compensation for the complainant.

The Court directed the Respondent, BMW India Private Limited to pay a total of Rs. 50 lakhs as a full and final settlement of all claims in dispute.