The Supreme Court has reiterated that cooperation in an investigation does not mean the accused must confess before the investigating officer.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that non-cooperation by the accused was one matter and the accused refusing to confess to the crime was another.
There would be no obligation upon the accused that on being interrogated, he must confess to the crime and only thereafter, would the Investigating Officer be satisfied that the accused has cooperated with the investigation observed the Court.
The Bench made these observations while holding a police inspector and a magistrate guilty of contempt of court for the arrest and remand of an accused in violation of the interim anticipatory bail order passed by the Apex Court.
The magistrate raised an argument during the hearing that the custody remand of the accused was sought by the police as he was not “cooperating” with the investigation.
The Court took note of the affidavit filed by the 6th ACJM (contemnor-respondent No.7) in the case, in which she laid stress on the fact that the Investigating Officer noted in his application that the accused-petitioner was not cooperating with the investigation.
The Bench said it failed to comprehend as to what could be construed to be cooperation in a criminal case, which was based on allegations that prima facie appeared to be in relation with a civil dispute.
The Apex Court pointed out that any confession made by the accused before a police officer was inadmissible in evidence and cannot even form a part of the record.