Is a confession made to a police officer admissible where it has led to no recovery?

It is not. The settled position of law is that a confession to police officials is inadmissible unless it leads to recovery, and here no recovery was made from the petitioners. That objection nevertheless goes to the strength of the material at trial, not to whether the prosecution may proceed at all, the remaining questions being subjects of evidence.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.120B — s.109 — s.307 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.173(5) — s.173(8) — Quashing of charge sheet — Confession of a co-accused — Additional documents — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.173(5) — Additional documents after the charge sheet — Held: The word "shall" in s.173(5) is directory and not mandatory; documents omitted when the report was filed may be produced later with the permission of the Court, and further investigation is in any event not precluded. (¶19, ¶20) Confession to a police officer — Inadmissible unless it leads to recovery — Held further: A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in law unless it leads to recovery, and no recovery was made from the petitioners. (¶13, ¶14) Quashing of charge sheet — Contested questions are matters of evidence — Held further: Whether a recovered handset supports the calls alleged, and whether the call records bear out a meeting of minds, are subjects of evidence at trial and no ground to quash the charge sheet. Petitions dismissed. (¶18, ¶21, ¶22)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Crl.OP.No.4781 of 2024 — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India