Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
BLOGS (HTTP://LAWSTUDENTSHELPLINE.BLOGSPOT.IN/)
CONTACT US (/INDEX.PHP/CONTACT-US)
(/index.php/201210120720
28/indianevidenceact)
Books
Indian Penal Code (/index.php/indian-penalcode-2)
Criminal Procedure Code
(/index.php/criminal-procedure-code)
confessionisthereanyexceptiontothisrule?tmpl=component&print=1&page=) Email
(/index.php/component/mailto/?
tmpl=component&template=st_magazine&link=6595a2caf62aae1b2d4b192c63096388f14b8ec8)
Answer:
Section25oftheIndianEvidenceActlaysdownthatnoconfessionmadetoapoliceofficershall
beprovedasagainstapersonaccusedofanoffence.
Section 26 says that no confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police
officer,unlessitismadeintheimmediatepresenceofaMagistrate,shallbeprovedasagainsta
person.
Therefore , on a combine reading of section 25 and section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act , it
arrearsthatconfessionbeforeapoliceofficer,whiletheaccusedisincustodyofpolice,isnotat
allaconfessionbutitwillbetreatedasconfessionifitismadebeforeaMagistrateundersection
164 of the Criminal Procedure code . A free and voluntary confession , before a Magistrate , is
alonesufficienttowarrantconviction.
So confession before a police officer is inadmissible . In the case of Anup Bhuyan Vs, State ,
HonbleSupremeCourtheldthatconfessionisaveryweakkindofevidence,asiswellknown,
the wide spread and rampant practice in the police in India is to use third decree methods for
extracting confession from the accused person . Hence , the Courts have to be cautious in
acceptingconfessionsmadetothepolicebytheaccused.
Thesolemnobjectofsection25oftheIndianEvidenceActistoensurethatthepersonaccusedof
anoffenceisnotinducedbythreat,coercionorforcetomakeaconfessionalstatement.Inthe
caseofQueenVs.Babulal,HonbleJusticeMehmod,observedlongbackin1884,thatsection25
oftheIndianEvidenceActwasenactedtoputanendtotheextortionofconfessionbytakingaway
fromthepoliceofficerstheadvantageofsuchextortedconfessionduringthetrialoftheaccused
persons.TheHonbleSupremeCourthasapprovedtheaboveobservationandhasfurtheradded
,inthecaseofNoorAgaVs.StateofPunjab,thatthesection25oftheIndianEvidenceActwas
enactedtosubserveahighpurpose.
Inseriesofdecisions,itwaspointedoutwhoarepoliceofficerscomewithinthepurviewofsection
25oftheIndianEvidenceAct.ItwasheldthatAnAssistantSuperintendentofPolice,Deputy
Commissioner of Police , Police Constable , Police Chowkidar , Village Chowkidar , Central
Reserve Police Force , Civic Guard while on duty , Special Officer of Commercial Tax
Department , Excise Officer or Inspector , Ward Rationing Officer , Gram Rakshi of Orissa ,
Home Guards of Orissa , SubInspector of Police on deputation as Security Inspector in a
Corporation,adalapatiundertheKarnatakaVillageDefencePartiesActarepoliceofficers.
Thereisoneexceptiontotheruleofsection25oftheIndianEvidenceAct.
Section 27 lays down that when any fact is discovered in consequence of information received
fromapersonaccusedofanoffence,whileinthecustodyofapoliceofficer,somuchofsuch
section26oftheIndianEvidenceAct.
Theessentialingredientsofsection27oftheIndianEvidenceActareasfollows:
i)Thrfactofwhichevidenceissoughttobegivenmustberelevanttotheissue.
ii) The fact must have been discovered as consequences of the information received from the
accused.
iii)Thepersongivingtheinformationmustbeaccusedofanoffence.
iv)Hemustbeinthecustodyofapoliceofficer.
v) That portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be
proved.Therestoftheevidenceisinadmissible.
Theprincipleonwhichthisexceptionismadetothegeneralruleisthatwhen.inconsequenceof
informationundulyobtainedfromtheaccused,thepropertystolen,ortheinstrumentofcrime,
weaponofassaultoranyothermaterialfacthasbeendiscovered,proofisadmissiblethatsuch
discoverywasmadeconformablywiththeinformationsoobtained.Thestatementoftheaccused,
beingthusconfirmedbyfact,isshowntobetrueandnottohavebeenfabricatedinconsequence
ofanyinducement.
HonbleSupremeCourtofIndiaheld,inthecaseofBombayVs.KathiKalu,thatsection27of
Indian EvidenceAct isnotunconstitutionaland violativeof Article 20(3) ofthe Constitutionof
Indiawhereithasbeenguaranteedthatnopersonaccusedofanoffenceshallbecompelledtobea
witness against himself . In the case of State of U.P Vs. Deoman Upadhyaya , Honble Supreme
CourtofIndiaheldthatsection27oftheIndianEvidenceActisnotultraviresandviolativeof
Article14oftheConstitutionofIndia.
TheActhasmaintainedagoodbalanceinbetweensection25andsection27tomeettheendsof
Justice.
*****
Visitors Counter
Facebook LikeBox
Login Form
Lawstudentshelp
Today
1506
Yesterday
2694
ThisMonth
48852
LastMonth
60225
Alldays
1604896
VisitorsCounter(http://vinaora.com/)
UserName
1,255likes
Password
LikePage
Share
Bethefirstofyourfriendstolikethis
SFbBoxbyassicurazioniauto
(http://www.assicurazioniautoonline.com/)
RememberMe
Login
Forgotyourpassword?
(/index.php/component/users/?view=reset)
Forgotyourusername?
(/index.php/component/users/?view=remind)
Copyright@LawStudentsHelpline(http://www.lawstudentshelpline.com)2013.AllRightsReserved.|Design&HostedBy:Technogleam
(http://www.technogleam.com)