A three judges bench of Justice Nariman, Justice Kant, Justice Khanna in the case titled as Manoharan vs State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore on 07.11.2019 has held that presence of lawyer is not necessary during recording of confession by a Magistrate.
So mereview petitions are filed against the judgment dated 01.08.2019 passed in Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police1 , wherein this three-Judge Bench had affirmed conviction of the accused Manoharan for offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(f) and (g) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”) and by majority upheld the death sentence confirmed by the High Court. Accused raised several contentions as grounds for review. One of the grounds relating to recording of confession is relevant here:
Supreme Court on the issue in hand observed and held as under:
"The plea regarding absence of a counsel during proceedings before the Magistrate under section 164, CrPC resulting into any prejudice, are misconceived.
What mandatorily is needed, as noted earlier, is that the Magistrate must satisfy himself of the voluntariness of the statement and all the statutory safeguards which includes bringing the repercussions and the voluntariness of making confessions to the knowledge of the accused, must be meticulously complied with. It is pertinent to take note of the first Proviso to Section 164(1), added with effect from 31.12.2009, which specifies that: “Provided that any confession or statement made under this subsection may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence.” (emphasis supplied).
Section 164 of the Code thus does not contemplate that a confession or statement should necessarily be made in the presence of the advocate(s), except, when such confessional statement is recorded with audio-video electronic means".
Read the Order here:
Picture Source :
