Just Because Accused Didn’t Confess, It Doesn’t Mean He Isn’t Cooperating With Probe: SC [Read Judgment]
The purpose of custodial interrogation is not just for the purpose of confession, the bench observed.The Supreme Court, in Santosh vs The State Of Maharashtra, has made an observation that merely because the accused did not confess, it cannot be said that he was not cooperating with the investigation.The allegation against the accused was that he received misappropriated foodgrain meant. The Supreme Court, in Santosh vs The State Of Maharashtra, has made an observation that merely because the accused did not confess, it cannot be said that he was not cooperating with the investigation. The allegation against the accused was that he received misappropriated foodgrain meant for public distribution. The bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R Banumathi observed that the investigating officer was of the opinion that the accused was not cooperating because he kept reiterating that he had not purchased the foodgrain.
Discover Related
Plea to deny Prabhakar Rao anticipatory bail
Top court allows Yasin Malik to cross-examine witnesses via video conferencing
Telangana phone-tapping case: Accused appears before police for questioning
Saif Ali Khan's attacker seeks bail, says he was booked in false case
Shravan Rao questioned by SIT in phone-tapping case
CB-CID SIT questions V.N. Sudhakaran in Kodanad dacoity-cum-murder case
Plea in Supreme Court seeks independent probe into Karnataka honey trap case
Phone Tapping Case: Prime Accused T. Prabhakar Rao Seeks Anticipatory Bail in HC