Under the supervision of

PROF. RAUNAQ JAISWAL

NAME- AKANKSHA BHATIA

COURSE- LLB
STUDENT ID- 21011744
SUBJECT- EVIDENCE LAW
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

It gives me great pleasure to express my gratitude to everyone who so kindly

dedicated their time and effort to share their insights and perspectives with me in
order to make this project successful PROF. MAYANK KATARIA , my project
mentor and advisor, deserves a lot of the credit for his tireless help and I received
constructive criticism that helped me grow and improve the paper.

I also express my admiration and genuine gratitude to PROF. MAYANK

KATARIA indirect contributor to the successful completion of this paper. I
sincerely appreciate my professor, for his persistent encouragement.

I'd like to close by thanking God, my parents, and my friends for their continuous
love and help.
 Table of Contents

ROLE ANALYSIS
MAP OF THE HOUSE
PANCHNAMA
RESEARCH ANALYSIS OF SECTION 24 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT
 INVESTIGATING OFFICER FOR THE ELDEST SON
The plea before this Hon’ble Court is that on the basis of evidence found on the
search conducted in the course of investigation the accused be held guilty.
The eldest son (accused) is charged with Section 27 read with Section 35 of the
Narcotics, drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for the consumption
and possession of psychotropic substances.
Issue- Whether the eldest son was under the influence of weed at the time Mohan
collapsed in his house?
RULE- As per Section 27 (b) of the Narcotics, drug and Psychotropic
Substances Act 1985 whoever consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic
substance other than those mentioned in clause A of Section 27 shall be punishable
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which
may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.
As per Section 35 of the Narcotics, drug and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 it is assumed that the accused knew what they were doing under this
provision therefore, unless the accused is shown to be innocent, they are guilty.
The Court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state of the accused in
any prosecution for an offence under this Act that calls for such a mental state, but
it shall be a defense for the accused to establish that he did not have such a mental
state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. The term
"culpable mental state" as used in this section refers to intent, motivation,
knowledge of a fact, or reason to believe a fact.
Section 14 of The Indian Evidence Act- Facts showing the existence of any state
of mind such as intention, knowledge or showing the existence of any state of
bodily feeling are relevant when the existence of any state of mind or bodily
feeling is in issue, thus becomes relevant.
The Section that I am invoking for the purpose of this assignment is Section 14 of
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
ANALYSIS-
POSSESSION UNDER SECTION 14 TO SHOW THE ELEMENT OF
KNOWLEDGE
As per the illustration A) of Section 14 if a person is accused of receiving stolen
property knowing them to be stolen. The fact that, at that time he was in
possession of stolen articles is relevant as tending to show that he knew each and
all the articles in his possession were stolen.
As per Section 14 the facts relevant to prove that the eldest son was in possession
of the psychotropic substance is that 100 gram of Marijuana was recovered from
his possession on investigation conducted in the eldest son’s room which satisfies
the existence of state of mind such as the element of knowledge required for this
section 14. The material seized is liable to be used subject to law before the
Hon’ble Court against the accused from whose custody it was seized. The eldest
son knew that the substances he had kept in his wardrobe are illegal despite that he
possessed it.
From the foregoing debate, it can be concluded that the eldest son having
conscious possession of drugs in his room depicts having knowledge and mental
state of mind (possession) at the same time as having physical possession of the
illegal substance. Under IPC, the element of ‘ Actus Reus’ and ‘ Mens Rea’ are
essential elements of a criminal offence. Similarly for the purpose of NDPS Act,
the physical and mental possession of drugs are essential elements to constitute an
offence.
In Madan Lal and Ors v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court decided that
once the possession of NDPS Act-prohibited substances is proven, it is considered
that the accused had awareness that the material was with him and was in
conscious possession of it. The one who asserts differently would have to prove
that it was an unwitting possession.
Presumption of innocence is one of the cornerstones of criminal law, which states
that the accused is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, but if he is charged
with a crime under the NDPS Act, the onus of proof shifts to him to show that he
did not commit the alleged crime. This means that a person accused of committing
an offence under the NDPS Act has the burden of proving that the presumption
against him is false and that the offence was not committed.
The court is bound to presume a mental state i.e. intention, knowledge or
motive in prosecution for offenses where culpable mental state is required since
the word “ shall presume” is used in the Narcotics, drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 hence it is of compelling nature which bounds the Court.
The accused will be given an opportunity to rebut such presumption by adducing
evidence in his favor that supports his side of the story.
Under this Section, the prosecution only has to prove the physical possession i.e.
control over the illicit article. Once the prosecution has proved the possession
beyond reasonable doubt which has already been established in the present case,
then the onus shifts on the accused.
The Court in Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh held that once the
possession is established the Court could presume that the accused had a culpable
mental state (conscious possession) and the accused might be presumed to have
committed the offence
In the case of Mahesh Laxmanbhai Patel v. State of Gujrat the court held that
since the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the accused had 6 grams of
brown sugar and that he had committed offenses punishable under Section 8 c and
21 of the NDPS Act. All the requirements of the NDPS Act were complied with
and thus the accused was held guilty under the NDPS Act.
The question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence collected in
the search is admissible. The Court in Pooran Mal case held that an illicit article
seized during the search of a person on prior information can be used as a relevant
evidence of unlawful possession of the illicit article on the person from whom that
contraband had been seized during an illegal search.
STATE OF BODILY FEELING
In order to show the state of bodily feeling of the eldest son and that he was under
the influence of psychotropic substance the facts corroborating to the fact in issue
that the eldest son was under the influence of weed can be proved in two ways A)
through the events happening in the house. B) Through Medical evidence
As per the facts of the case the eldest son despite seeing all the commotion in the
house and his father getting unconscious was unresponsive the whole time he was
too high, hungry and dozed out at the stream of events he instead of helping his
father decided to go and sit in the same place where his father collapsed ate
cookies and gulped down the same juice which Mohan drank.
When he heard the man in black suit and witnessed the commotion he was
completely out of his senses and under the influence of Marijuana got and scared
ran out of the backdoor.
Another fact corroborating the fact in issue are the medical evidence of the
Forensics and Medical expert led in this case clearly indicates the presence of
50NG/ML Marijuana in the bloodstream of the accused depicting that he was
under the influence of weed.
A fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it the Court
believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought
under the circumstances acts upon the supposition that it exists. It is undoubtedly
established from the search conducted in the eldest son’s room that he was in
possession of 100 grams of psychotropic substance which was recovered from his
closet and from the events which happened in the house and the blood test report
provided by the medical officer depicting the presence of 50 NG/ML Marijuana in
the bloodstream of the eldest son that the eldest son is guilty of Section 27 read
with Section 35 of the Narcotics, drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985. The blood test report of the eldest son along with the sketch of the house and
the panchnama is attached along with this assessment for reference.
 Crime Analysis Corporation,
Drug test report branch,
Mahipalpur, New Delhi
Phone 412-555-1111
Fax 412-555-1113

Medical Officer Review Confidential

DOT Controlled substance

Donor: Eldest Son

Reason for test: Police custody
Specimen ID: 0123455676

Drug Screen cut off cut off

Marijuana 50 NG/ML 50NG/ML
Cocaine 20 NG/ML 0 NG/ML

Collected date time: 16/10/2022

Lab report dated: 17/10/2022
Overall Verified result: Positive for marijuana in blood

Gargi
Forensic and Medical Supervisor
 SKETCH OF THE
HOUSE

A- Empty glass with juice residue O- Smashed car

B- Plate with Cookies
C- Kitchen knife
D- Sita’s money purse
E- Trail of blood
F- Blood stained footprints N- Seizure medicines
G- Alarm clock
H- Dog’s head
I- Dog’s body
J- Footprints
K- Baseball bat
L- Bloody knife
M- Closet
P- 100g of weed
NEWWWWWWWWWW—-------
 
 
Panchnama
Panchanama of scene of offence in Cr. No. 151 2022 u/s 34, 108, 109, 116, 120-B, 186, 300,
302, 304- A, 323, 336, 337, 338, 391, 426, 447 IPC, 27 NDPS, 25 Antiquities and Art Treasures
Act. 
P.S. Place: Jagdishpur       Date 22/9/2022       Time 12:30pm
Names of Panchayatdars (Mediators)
1. Sri      Ramakrishnan
S/o         Bala Gangadhar
Age        43 Years
Occâ    Accountant
R/O        Sonipat, Haryana
 Phone No 6379856782
 
2.Sri       Ajay Kumar
S/o         Chitrangad
Age        47 Years
Occâ    Doctor
R/O        Sonipat, Haryana
 Phone No 9765578900
 
We the above named Panchayatdars assembled at the above mentioned place, date & time
on the request of Police. The scene of offence is in the house of the deceased, who is
currently at the hospital. The house is located near Jagdishpur Village, 40 kms away from
Sonipat Narela Road.
 
 
As we enter the house, we find:

●  That the house opens up to the living room and there’s a couch and the side table next
to the couch.
●  The side table contains an empty glass with residue of some juice and a plate next to it,
with a few cookies on them.
●  The living room is attached to the kitchen area. A counter is seen dividing the living
room and the kitchen. 
●  A kitchen knife is found on the counter. A money purse with Sita’s identity cards and a
500 rupee note was found on the floor, beside the kitchen counter.
●  A trail of blood is visible as we move from the living room, leading upstairs.
●  As we move upstairs, the floor has blood on it and various footprints in the blood are
visible.
 ●  A bedroom with an attached bathroom is seen. A bedside alarm is found on the desk.
The bathroom door was kept open and behind the drawn curtains, there is the severed
head of a dog in between a circular design with triangles on it. The body of the dog is
found at the end of the bathroom. The head has been clearly severed and there is a
visible blood pool near the body. The floor of the bathroom is covered with blood and
there are footprints visible.
●  There is a baseball bat on the floor and the fridge is placed 15 feet away from the
bathroom door.
●  Behind the fridge, a bloody knife is retrieved.
●  The bed is clean with no objects hidden. There is a closet found next to the bed with
household items belonging to Sita and Mohan, including seizure medicines.
●  The other bedroom on the floor contains regular items, and is free of blood. The room is
decorated with posters belonging to the elder son. Apart from that, 100 grams of weed
is found in the closet, hidden behind a few bedsheets.
●  The house holds a Garage below it and a blue Maruti Suzuki car with plate number HR
26 DQ 5551 is found shattered, with its windows broken and front shield completely
cracked. This car has been seized. A lawn is found as we exit the garage, in front of the
house, where a man aged between 23-26 is found lying unconscious. His body is soaked
in sweat and there is a strange odour emitting from him. Immediate medical assistance
was called for the man and he is currently being taken to the hospital.
●  A diary was found inside the closet in the upper floor bedroom, subsequent to a search
conducted following Section 27 triggered by the accused- Sita’s statement.
 

The police have photographed / video graphed the scene of the offence. Close photographs of
the scene are also taken showing the details of the evidence collected. A sketch of the scene of
offence was also drawn showing the location of the dead animal and its surroundings. The
evidence seized has been duly signed by the Panchayatdars and the IO’s.
 
Panchanama is read over to us in vernacular language and admitted to be correct. The
Panchanama is concluded at 5:30pm on 22/9/2022.
Signatures of Panchayatdars;
1. Ramakrishnan
2. Ajay Kumar
 
 
Pranav, Harshana, Suchitra
Signature of Investigating Officers
 
SECTION 24 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872

Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in

criminal proceeding.—A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant
in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the
Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise.

An accused person's confession in a criminal proceeding is meaningless, per

this section, if it appears to have been coerced by any incitement, threat, or
pledge involving the accused person that came from a reliable source and, in
the court's opinion, was sufficient to give the accused person grounds to
believe that he would gain any advantage or avoid some temporary poor in
relation to the proceedings against him.

If the court determines that a confession was coerced into being, it will do so
by a person in authority making a threat or a promise to the accused that, in
the court's opinion, was sufficient to give the accused person reasonable
grounds to believe that, if he received any benefit or avoided some
temporary evil in connection with the proceedings against him, it would do
so.

Constituent parts of section 24

This clause states that the following circumstances render the suspect's
conviction meaningless:
A) Confession obtained through inducement, threat or promise-
Confession should be free and voluntary. If a confession flows from
remorse it is relevant but if a confession flows from hope, fear, excited
by a person in authority it is inadmissible. Confessions obtained by
coercion or other forms of violence are not voluntary and so are not
acceptable. The court will determine whether or not a confession was
voluntarily made. Religion itself, the prosecution's evidence, the
accused's testimony, or events around them may all make one wonder
whether non-voluntary existence is being interfered with. These issues
 must be taken into account by the court. If the confession was obtained
unlawfully, the court should throw it out.
The court in the case of R. v. Cooley held that where the accused was
told by the magistrate, “ Tell me where things are and I will be favorable
to you” in order to obtain a confession, such a confession in response to
these statements are held irrelevant.
The court in the case of Pyare Lal Bhargvan v. State of Rajasthan held
that it is sufficient for the purpose of excluding confession if the
confession appears to be the result of an inducement even if it is not
proved that the inducement reached the accused.
B) The threat, promise or inducement must relate to the charge in
question- There must be inducements, warnings, obligations, etc. in the
challenged charge. The defendant must have been forced to confess by
the supervisor. If a person is accused of a crime and informed that his
conviction would not be relevant to the current case if he confesses, the
confession is accurate. Inducements in reference to other offences or
matters or offences committed by others will not affect the validity of
confession.
The court in the case of Empress v. Mohan held that where a person is
charged with murder and was made to confess to Panchayat on the threat
of removal from the caste for life, such a confession was held to be valid
because the threat had nothing to do with the charge.
The Court in the case of Aghnoo Naghesia v. State of Bihar case held
that if the confession is caused by an inducement, threat or promise as
contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, the whole of the
confession is excluded by Section 24. Section 24 prohibits the production
of evidence that includes both the admission of the crime and every other
incriminating fact, such as the motivation, the planning, and the action
that followed. By concluding that Section 24 does not prohibit the proof
of the admission of further incriminating facts, the section would lose
both its practical application and its meaning. Proof of all the admissions
of incriminating facts caused by inducement, threat or promise contained
in a confessional statement is excluded by the section.
C) Person in authority- The prosecution of the accused may be directed by
a person with certain legal privileges. In the case of Pyare Lal v. State of
 Rajasthan, it was decided that the individual forcing the defendant to
confess, making a new promise, or threatening him had to be someone in
a position of authority. A "person in authority" is defined in this
judgment as a person who has the ability or power to file charges against
the accused.
The Court in the case of R. v. Middleton held that every government
official will be a person in authority whom the accused thinks is capable
of influencing the course of investigation.
In the case of State of U.P. V. Deoman Upadhyaya held that all
confessional statements made by persons in custody except those in the
presence of Magistrate would attract the provision of Section 24 and are
not provable.
In the case of S.K. Modi v. State of Maharashtra officers of Custom
department were held to be person in authority in reference to a person
from whom they had extorted a confession.
The Court in Customs & Excise Commissioner v. Harz., (1967) held
that "it is a fundamental condition of the admissibility in evidence against
any person, equally of any oral answer given by that person to a question
put by a police officer and of any statement made by that person, that it
should have been voluntary, in the sense that it has not been obtained
from him by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out
by a person in authority, or by oppression."
D) Benefit of temporal nature- The accused's mind should be persuaded by
the inducement, threat, or promise in order for him to obtain some benefit
or escape temporal evil. However, simple coercion, threat, or promise is
sufficient to instil in the suspect a reasonable idea that, in exchange for
his confession, he would have some sort of temporal advantage with
regard to the legal action being taken against him. Mere moral or spiritual
inducements will not vitiate the confession.

CONCLUSION
A confession is meaningless and cannot be used to prove an accusation if
it appears to have been the consequence of a threat, promise, or
provocation from a person in power.