Site navigation

In Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana (Supreme Court, 26 July 2001), a man entered court with a knife…

Mahabir Singh held that the document could not be treated as a confession under section 164. Production by the police is not indispensable, but the Magistrate must have…

Choose your answer

In Mahabir Singh v. State of Haryana (Supreme Court, 26 July 2001), a man entered court with a knife and asked to confess. The Magistrate recorded him on oath without establishing his connection to a commenced investigation or showing the mandatory confession warnings and voluntariness inquiry. How did the Court treat that document?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer B

Mahabir Singh held that the document could not be treated as a confession under section 164. Production by the police is not indispensable, but the Magistrate must have reason to believe that an investigation has begun and the person is concerned in it, must warn him that he is not bound to confess, and must be satisfied that the confession is voluntary; none of this was shown. A confession is recorded without oath, so the oath added nothing. CrPC s.164 is now section 183 of the BNSS.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic