Solution

In Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana 2 issues were raised 1) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the involvement of the appellants with the aid of Section 120-B of the IPC (ie Criminal Conspiracy) 2) Whether conviction could be sustained on the basis of confessions to police officer in police custody The Supreme Court observed that the confessional statements were recorded after the arrest of the accused while they were in police custody. Therefore, such statements were inadmissible having regard to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The approach of the High Court relying upon the confessional statements, otherwise inadmissible, with the aid of 'other connected evidence' is contrary to law. The inadmissibility of confessional statements, stood accepted and established by the Court owing to the joint operation of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act,1872, whereby confession to a police officer and confession made by an accused in police custody do not stand proved as against him. The bench was of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the charge of conspiracy against these appellants with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC. As a result, the appeals were allowed and the impugned judgment and sentence were, accordingly, set aside. In Ramakant Mishra v. State of UP, it was held that mere fact that in the dying declaration an oath had been administered to the deceased before recording the same, would not doubt the credibility of the dying declaration and would not nullify the same. In State of Punjab v. Dhanjit Singh Sandhu, it was held that the doctrine of “approbate and reprobate” is only a species of estoppel, it implies only to the conduct of parties. As in the case of estoppel it cannot operate against the provisions of a statute. It is settled proposition of law that once an order has been passed, it is complied with, accepted by the other party and derived the benefit out of it, he cannot challenge it on any ground “Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that ‘a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage”.