Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
the circumstances of the act or the share and participation he had in it.
2. A statement made by a defendant discussing his guilt of crime with
which he is charged and excluding possibility of a reasonable inference
to the contrary.
3. A voluntary statement made by one who is a defendant in criminal trial
at the time when he is not testifying in trial and by which he
acknowledges certain conduct of his own constituting the crime for
which he is on trial, a statement which if true, discloses the guilt of that
crime.
1
97
In India the definition generally accepted by the courts was what had been
propounded by Stephen;12 “A confession is an admission made any time by a
may not be directly admitted by the accused but even if it can be inferred from
It may be noted here that in England even the recently passed Police
and Criminal Evidence Act., 1984 adopt the same broad approach. Section
82(1) of the Act defines a confession to include any statement wholly or partly
adverse to the person who made it whether made to a person in authority or
not and whether made in words or otherwise.
In India, however, Starjit, J. discarded the definition of Stephen. He
held that only statements which are direct acknowledgements of guilt should
be regarded as confessions and it cannot be construed as including a mere
inculpatory admission which falls short of being an admission of guilt.
Lord Atkin accepted the dictum of Straight. J. in Pakala Narayan
Swami v. Emperor,13 and held that:
possession”.
The Privy Council in discarding Stephen’s definition further held that:
“Some confusion appears to have been caused by the definition
14
AIR 1952 SC 354.
15
AIR 1966 SC 119.
99
exculpatory character and in which prisoner denies his guilt is not a confession
and cannot be used in evidence to prove his guilt.
A folly self-inculpatory statement admitting all ingredients of the
offence would on the other hand be a clear confession.
The difficulty arises only in case of statements which are partly self-
statement of the accused and at the same time to reject the exculpatory part of
and rejecting the inculpatory part on the ground that it was not only inherently
incredible, but was contradicted by other evidence in the case.
Thus it was a matter of appreciation of evidence and not of
admissibility of the statement. The statement if not hit by the provisions of
Evidence Act should be admitted in evidence and both parts must be open to
scrutiny of the court at the time of appreciation of evidence.
This is now the settled law according to the judgment passed in
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana*2 that it is permissible to believe a part of
a confessional statement and to. disbelieve another and that is enough if the
court to reject the exculpatory part and to take the inculpatory one into
4. The confession of one accused tried along with some other accused
law is not a technical refinement but based upon the substantive difference of
and tending in connection with other facts to prove his guilt, but of itself is
as follows:
“If the statement by itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused,
it is a confession but that if, on the other hand, the statement falls short of it. It
an admission is that where a confession can be based upon the statement alone
believed to be conclusive against the person making it, at least one the
physical facts of the matter to which it relates. In such cases the proof is in the
nature of direct evidence a confession “Not Plenary” is where the truth of the
25
56 Mont 485.
26
AIR 1959 AIL 518.
103
state of facts different from that which it indicates but only gives rise to
circumstantial evidence.
Extra-judicial.
Judicial confessions are those which are made before the Magistrate in
due course of legal proceedings e.g. confessions recorded under Sections 164,
364 and 242 of the Code or Criminal Procedure. It is however, essential that
they be made or the free will of the party and with full knowledge of the nature
express confession of crime but all those admissions and acts of the accused
from which guilt may be implied.27
the officers of justice such as constable police officers etc. If voluntarily made
they are receivable in evidence after being proved like other facts. An extra
judicial confession if satisfactorily provided to have been voluntarily made
may be the basis for a conviction even in the absence of corroboration.
27
Taylor on Evidence 867.
28
(1963) ILJ 645.
104
and genuine and besides, should have some corroboration to be relied upon
29 (1936) PC 253.
30 1972 Cr. LJ. 566.
31 F.R. Mario Pires v. Dir ofEnforcement, New Delhi 1982 Cr. L.J. 461 (Goa).
32 (1971)LXXIV Bom. LJ. 299.
105
in Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. The term ‘hearsay’ is generally used
to indicate the evidence which does not derive its value from the credit given
to the witness himself but. which rests also in part al the veracity and
competence of some other person.33 Hearsay evidence is considered
untrustworthy since the original maker of the statement is not before the court
as a witness. The time lag before the statement is repeated in the court may
33
Taylor on Evidence, 570.
106
introduce distortions. Further the original declarant was not put on oath before
permitted to, on his own prayer. Thus a confession made by him before the
evidence is that they are statements one or the parties to the proceeding. The
party is litigating in the court and is in a position to admit or deny that he had
made such a statement. He can also cross examine the witness proving the
admission or confession made by him.
Secondly, they also derive probative force from a ring of truth that
accompanies them. If a person makes a statement out of court, in his fayour, it
may be of little value since there is always a tendency to say self serving
create inducement to create evidence for himself and open the door to fraud.
But this objection ceases to have force when the statement is against his own
interest. In the natural course of human conduct a man is not likely to say
anything against his advantage or interest unless it were true.
The main thrust of the rule against hearsay being on the need and
prudence of affording an opportunity of cross examining the original maker of
the statement. He said rule can in fact not be invoked in case of confessions. A
confession is alleged to have been made by the accused who cannot cross
examine himself. Wigmore34 gives the following illustration to drive home the
point: “If Jones had said out of court, “The party opponent Smith borrowed his
34
Wigmore on Evidence, 1048.
107
the assertion. But if it is Smith himself who said out of court, ‘I borrowed fifty
dollars,’ certainly Smith cannot complain of lack of opportunity to cross
party. The party is discredited when it appears that on some other occasion he
had made a statement inconsistent with and contrary to his present claim.
made is likely to be true being against, the interest of its maker. Once it is
accepted as true nothing really remains in the trial and the person who has
made the confession is straightaway liable to be convicted and sentenced
crime may not be directly admitted by the accused but even if it can be
inferred from his statement, the statement would amount to a confession. Self-
exculpatory statement cannot amount to a confession. Self-inculpatory
statement admitting all ingredients of the offence would on the other hand be a
clear confession. All confessions are admissions but the converse is not true.
The principle which governs a. confession and an admission is the same and
that principle is. that a statement made by a person against his own interest
might be true.
108
accused and the prosecution. On one hand it helps the court to take lenient
view towards accused and on the other hand it saves the public time. But in
order to save the public time the Constitutional rights of the accused should
the law relating to the history and development of confession is made in the
next chapter.
35
S. 163 Cr. P.C.
109
from being given in evidence. Then Section 27 of the Evidence Act creates an
exception i.e. a confession or any other statement which is deposed to have led
actual part of the statement distinctly leading to the discovery. This exception
qualifies both Section 25 and 26 but not Section 24. Section 28 and 29 are
that a confession was made under promise of secrecy or by deceit for the
purpose of obtaining it or when the person making the confession was drunk
or that it was made in answer to questions which he was not bound to answer
do not make the same irrelevant under section 24. A confession of a co
accused when found relevant and proved can be taken into consideration by
the court against the co-accused persons under the power conferred by Section
30.
36
ILR6 All 509.
37
ILR 6 Sec. 509.
110
relevant. A confession made under an inducement that has not been removed
38
Re Navnithmal, AIR 1939 Mad. 32.
39
AIR, 1963 SC 1094.
111
and it is a question of fact in each case whether the person concerned is a man
of authority or not. What is more important is that the mere existence of the
threat, inducement or promise is not enough but in the opinion of the court the
belief in the mind of the accused that by confession he would get an advantage
him. While the opinion is that of the court, the criterion is the reasonable belief
of the accused.”
The section, therefore, makes it clear that it is the duty of the court to
place itself in the position of the accused and to form an opinion as to the state
of his mind in the circumstances of a case.
Thus to attract the provision of this section the following facts have to
be established:
112
(a) That the confession has been made by an accused person to a person in
authority.
(b) That it must appear to the court that the confession has been obtained
person in authority.
(c) That the inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the
(d) That inducement, threat or promise must in the opinion of the court, be
crime by a person, who has perpetrated it, is usually the outcome of penitence
and remorse and in normal circumstances is the best evidence against the
maker. However, before arriving at any conclusion based on a retracted
confession, the court has to take into consideration not only the reasons for
making the confession or retracting it but also the attending facts and
circumstances surrounding the same. There is no legal rule that a retracted
the court has to decide whether the confession made by the accused in a
criminal case has been proved the law requires that the court must be satisfied
that the confession made was free and voluntary and that it was not brought
about by the influence of hope or fear. If the prosecution satisfies the court on
40
AIR 1955, Pepsu 33.
41
AIR 1958 SC 66.
113
these points and it is held that the confession was a free and voluntary act of
the accused and that it was not induced by any hope or fear or coercion,, then it
accused at his trial. “It is the purpose of arriving at the satisfaction regarding
voluntariness and while exploring reasons for retraction that the court relates it
with other evidence on record and seeks corroboration if possible. The rule of
statement different tests will have to be applied to different set of facts. In the
very nature of things, there can be no rigidity about them. What test is best
applicable to a given set of facts is for the judge of facts to decide. If the
confession is one which is not the result of the free-will of the maker of it, so
42
26 Cr. LJ. 1313.
43
IL 1960 Bom. 664.
114
Thus, the law does not require the motive for a confession to be
elicited The only requirement laid down by the law is that the confession
tainted by any of these vitiating factors the court is entitled to presume that it
confession comes at the time of final disposal of the case when its weight is
determined in relation to other evidence, available on record.
made by any person in authority. The inducement may be implied from the
confession guilt has become the more desirable of two alternatives between
which he is obliged to choose, a confession made by him becomes
untrustworthy.
As per Woodroffe,52 an inducement may take the form of a promise or
a threat, often the inducement involves both promise and threat - a promise of
is calculated to, influence the prisoner’s mind with respect to his escape from
the charge.53
made by the accused who was not questioned continuously at a stretch and tow
or three hours had lapsed after he was taken to the house of the Mukhiya was
held to be voluntary. On the other hand, a confession made as a result of
will not arise, thanks to Section 25 and 26. However, a confession made to
persons other than police officers while the accused is in judicial custody have
been scrutinized by the courts. It has been held by the court in Aher Raja
Khima v. State of Saurashtra,55 that if the jail in which the accused has been
ordered to be kept before the confession is recorded was such that the, police
had access to and the accused said that the opportunity was fully utilized to
r*rvprr»a onrl flnmofan fVvo ^An|ac!(;iAn r»An1rl Ko fa Ko r
VUViVV U11V1 till V/dcVAA AJ.1J.JLJ. tliw WiiiwJOiV/ll WUJU C/V jpi VOUUIVU XV/ uv 1A1V V/lVUitCUjf 5
In such circumstances the accused will not be required to positively prove his
assertions.
in the context of Article 20(3) of the Constitution must mean what in; law is
called duress’
Krishna Iyer. J. has cited in Nandini Satpati v. P.L. Danif the
interrogation.
It was held in Yusuf AH v. State of Maharashtra,58 that the act of tape
recording of the conversation between the complainant and the accused with
the knowledge of the complainant and without the knowledge of the accused
were held to be not violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. It was held in
Dr. R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra,59 that though the police had
adopted the method of deception since the accused actually did not know
about the presence of the police, his statement cannot be called compelled
testimony.
first instance, seem to favour a view that the burden of proving involuntariness
the Indian law differs from the law of England. However, ‘appears to the
court’ does not by its terms, require positive proof by the accused. All that it
unchallenged, Once it is pointed out to the court that the confession was
was indeed involuntary, the burden on the accused if any is discharged. As per
is to determine whether a fact exists or not. The use of the word “appears”
while requiring proof, indicates that a lesser degree of such proof is required in
this than in other cases.61
When it does appear to the court that the confession has been caused by
inducement etc, the onus of proof immediately shifts to prosecution who will
now have to prove affirmatively to the satisfaction of the court that the
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, the condition of the inadmissibility of a
confession is qualified by the words: “If... it is represented to the court that the
confession was or may have been obtained by oppression... etc. Thus the
nothing beyond that in the U.K. the law on burden of proof has been well
settled and has remained unchanged since the test was laid down by Cave. J. as
follows: “A simple test... is it proved affirmatively62 that the confession was
free and voluntary, i.e. was it preceded by any inducement to make a statement
held out by a person in authority? If so and the inducement has not been
clearly removed before the statement was made evidence on the statement is
inadmissible.”
Parke B. told the prosecutor. “You are bound to satisfy me that the
confession which you seek to prove against the prisoner was not obtained form
him by improper means.”63
Section 24 of the Evidence Act otherwise. It is true that the scheme of the
Indian Evidence Act makes confessions prima facie relevant. The
accused since the Circumstances are within his knowledge. So far the position
is the same in U.K. in as much as it has to be ‘represented’ to the court that the
confession was taken under any of the vitiating circumstances. However, once
62
Emphasis supplied.
63
R. V. Warringham 1851 2 Den CC 447.
120
it is done and some reasonable suspicion is made to arise in the mind of the
court it will be for the prosecution to prove the absence of such circumstances.
The dictum of R.V. Thompson has been adopted in India.64
‘ involuntariness \
authority is neither defined in the Evidence Act nor any illustration of a person
64
Ashutosh v. R, 26 CWN 54.
65
AIR 1933 Patna 149.
121
authority to interfere in the matter under enquiry. The reported cases on the
point show that generally speaking “person in authority” within the meaning
of Section 24 is one who is engaged in the apprehension, detention or
prosecution of the accused or one who is empowered to examine him.”
interpretation is adhered to it can include only Magistrate and Judges who are
empowered to punish offenders and the police and other officials of the
on to hold that the term should not be used in any restricted sense. Later on in the
case of R. v. Warringham, Chief Justice Sargent laid down the rule as follows:
“The test would seem to be had the person any authority to interfere with
the matter and any concern or interest on it would appear to be sufficient to give
him that authority where Parke-B held that the wife of the prosecutor and one
concerned in the management of their business was a person in authority. A case
from the Calcutta High Court reiterates that in construing the expression “person
in authority” the test is to see whether the person has any power to interfere in the
matter or has any concern on interest in the matter. This s a comprehensive
construction that can be put on the term to give better effect to the provision. An
example may show to force of this interpretation. Take for instance that an owner
of a lost article says to the supposed thief “tell me the truth or I will hand you up
to the police.” Here the fear caused by the threat, may induce the person suspected
of the theft to make a clean breast of the offence and plead with the owner of the
lost article not to hand him over to the police. Here the owner of the lost article
though not a person invested with powers or apprehension etc. by the
66
(1872)2 B.H.C. 358.
67
2 D.C.C. 447.
122
Government, yet on account of the position he occupies as the owner or the stolen
property, has got some power to control the prosecution of the accused; person
Thus he can either report the matter to the police for prosecution of the accused or
altogether drop the matter and condone the thief. This power for the time being on
the part of the person who is the owner of the stolen property gives to his
utterances addressed to the accused person an authoritative range which can
overcome the accused. If that is so it is obvious a confession made to such a
person under such a threat cannot be genuine for a court to act upon. The
managers of a private banking concern or other commercial institutions are to be
regarded as persons in authority on this principle only if any of their subordinates
make a confession of an offence committed in the banking concern or other
commercial institutions. Their authority comes only from the fact that they can
investigate in the first instance into the alleged offence committee by a person
employed under them and then hand over the culprit to the proper authorities. But
can a co-worker such as another clerk working along with the accused person
strike terror into the mind of accused. His influence, it may be submitted is not so
very paralyzing and hence he can scarcely be regarded as a person in authority.
What he can at best do is to calumniate the accused person and intimate to the
common superior the wrong done by him.”
It can be seen from the above interpretation that an individual to be a
person in authority within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act must
i
stand in such a relation to the accused person as to imply some power of control
or interference with regard to his prosecution or any concern or interest in the
i
same. It has to be borne in mind that the concern or interest is not the common
concern or interest which every citizen may have in an offence which is notional
an attach on society at large but a concern or interest which is natural to a person
on account of his personal relation to the offence.
123
to the House Surgeon of that hospital and ward and on whose recommendation
the confirmation of that nurse on her services depended. The court held in Mst.
Veeran Wali v. State68 that the confession is made to a person in authority
within the meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act and excluded the same
not protested when the others offered the inducement to the accused, the
inducement could be said to have proceeded from him as well and it was
including the police officer in reference to the proceedings against him. The
court held in Punja Mava v. State,69 that even when a doubt is cast as to the
68
AIR 1960 MP 132.
69
AIR 1965 Gujarat 5.
70
(1852) 2 Den. 552.
124
74
AIR 1966 Cal 587.
126
or conduct as well on the part of the person in authority, which may be construed
by the accused person. As he; then is an amounting to an inducement threat or
promise, will have to be taken into account. A perfectly innocent expression
coupled with acts or conduct on the part of the person in authority together with
the surrounding circumstances may amount to inducement threat or promise. The
view was upheld in the case of Mst. Kisture v. State.
The Supreme Court on the matter in Pyare Lai Bhargav v. State of
Rajasthan,76 observed as follows:
75
AIR 1967 Raj 98.
76
AIR 1963 SC 1094.
77
AIR 1954, Trav. Cochin 456.
127
promise which should lead the accused to suppose that by making it he would
gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the
authority must reasonably have the effect of raising any hope or leading the
person making the statement to suppose that by making the statement he
A person summoned under section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act was
told that he must state what he knows and he must state that truthful, otherwise
he would be prosecuted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for. giving
false evidence.
Here, the person making the statement was only asked to tell the truth
and that if he does not tell the truth, he may be prosecuted under Section 193
of the Indian Penal Code for giving false evidence or if he does not answer a
of Section 171-A. There was no threat given by the officers recording the
statement which could have raised any hope in the minds of the persons
78
AIR 1965 Bom.
128
making the statements or led them to suppose that they were going to gain any
give evidence against himself. This, along with Section 163(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure which prohibits police officers and other persons in
authority to offer any inducement, threat or promise as mentioned in this
succeeding provisions which stretch the right too far are shrouded with
controversy. But so far as Section 24 is concerned, there are absolutely no
doubts as to its necessity to safeguard an important human right.
excluded by the Section 24 of Evidence Act. But such objection is raised, there
is no necessity for the court to pronounce any formal decision on the question
of relevancy of the confession. The actual admission of the evidence during
the trial is sufficient for the purpose. The section is clearly a general provision
and applies to confessions made by a person whether in police custody not and
whether it is made to be police officer or to others.
The law does not require the motive for a confession to be elicited. The
only requirement laid down by the law is that the confession should be free
J
confession is not tainted by any of these vitiating factors the court is entitled to
the confession comes at the time of final disposal of the case when its weight
enacted under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act on the face of it, shows a
serious concern of legislature for protection against police brutality, of the
the concept of deemed in voluntariness due to the custody of the police. In the
process, however, an important agency of the state entrusted inter-alia with the
job of maintaining law and order and of prevention and detection of crimes the
whilst he is in custody of the police except to the extent provided for in section
79
1783 I Leach CC 263.
130
are not proved to be perfectly voluntary, after the ruling it was authoritatively
laid down that “By the Law of England, in order to render a confession
that any inducements in the nature of a promise or a threat held out by a person
originated though not directly put in words in any statute or judgments. During
the same time the privilege against self-incrimination was getting strengthened
and acquiring new dimensions in the U.S.A. also. It was held in Brain v. U.S.U
that the constitutional guarantee applied to pre-trial stages as well. The British
rulers in India were apparently influenced by the thinking in U.K. at that time.
Further the Indian police force was structured by the British in a way as to suit
perpetuation of the British rue in India. Police were provided with immense
powers to deal with deviations form the law by the Indians. Offences against
the State attracted very serious punishments. The senior officers of the police
were mostly British, who lived and worked for the continuance and supremacy
of the British rule. The lower rank officers were expected more than anything
else to be loyal and obedient to the seniors and hence, to the rulers. In contract
with the British police established by Sir Robert Peel in 1829, the Indian
Police was never encouraged by the British to be friendly to the public. They
were always projected as the representatives of the Governmental authority
over the public rather than as. servants of the public, because it suited the
80
1852 2 Den. 430.
81
178 US 542 1897.
131
British rulers. A police ‘Darogah’ was the person enjoying absolute powers
over the masses and did not hesitate in misusing them to harass and torture the
prove his efficacy before the British bosses. The report of the Indian Law
1853 and other papers which have been brought to our notice
abundantly show that the powers of the Police are often abused
credit for an accusation of the kind against them. This is not infrequently done
by extorting or fabricating false confession and when this step is once taken,
the case and it. is his object to prevent a discovery of the truth, and the
apprehension of the guilty parties who as far as the police are concerned, are
prohibiting any examination whatever of any accused by the police the result
offer to him: but the police will not be permitted to put upon record any
statement made by a party accused of an offence. .
accused was dropped and the limitation that remained was the bar to their
reasons namely:
were often not admitted in evidence, but a discretion was still left with the
courts. Judges Rules did not as such have a rule of law, The discretionary
power of the courts was emphasized and it was laid down that while
have shown no reason in the last hundred years for the opinion about their
brutality. Oppression and alienation from the public to. undergo any change.
The reforms undertaken after the report of the first Police Commission
appointed in 1860 failed to achieve any positive results towards improving the
image of the police. This was chiefly because not much attention was paid to
82
1909 I KB 692 (CCA)
83
1976 I AC 760.
134
this aspect. The Act of 186184 created a uniform and homogeneous police
system in India. But the nature and the basic procedures of work were not
drastically changed. The Indians were employed only in inferior posts and
could at the most reach the lower rank officers who used short cut methods of
report described the Indian police as tyrannical and observed at in police there
was general absence of any attention to the necessity of keeping the temper
unqualified policemen recruited from a very low stratum of the society were
entrusted with too much power and authority which was one of the causes of
police oppression.
laurels they had won for their loyalty to their former masters turned into
stigmas their services to a Government that was alien now alienated them an
their past modes and mores hung heavily with them as they sought fresh
adjustments with the people in the change context.87
liberty are under a new peril when the guardians of the law gore human rights
to death” The Supreme Court expressed its concern stating that the police
believed more in fists than wits, or torture more than culture. They believe in
Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev & others v. State ofRajasthan,89 They believe all
is well with the police the cities are always in the wrong. Nothing is more
cowardly and unconsciousable than a person in police custody being beaten up
and nothing inflicts a deeper wound on our Constitutional culture than a state
another case of police torture resulting in death, the Supreme Court, observed
that, “Handmaids of law and order should not use their position for oppressing
innocent citizens who look to them for protection.” The Supreme Court, had to
suggest amendments in the Law of Evidence to incorporate a presumption that
injuries caused to a person while in police custody were caused by the
concerned police officers.
were enacted. The writer has not gone in detail. through the administrative
reforms undertaken since independence as the same would require a detailed
88 1980 Cr. LJ. 801 (SC).
1981 1 SCC 503.
AIR 1985 SC 416.
136
independent study. But common experience in Delhi shows that the traditional
torture rooms ill the police stations no longer exist. The accused persons and
witnesses are mostly interrogated in an open hall, usually accessible and
visible to any person entering the police station. The voice of the Duty Officer
driver push-start his car in case of a breakdown. Further, today, cases of police
torture get easily highlight by the press and are likely to result in action against
erring officials. The police station is not the limit of reach of today’s citizen,
like it used to be before independence. The superior officers of the police and
the courts are more easily accessible than they were at that time. The courts in
particular are more alive to the requirements of ensuring protection of rights of
the accused when he is handed over to police custody and of hearing his
grievances when he is produced before them. Even otherwise the very fact that
the whole of the police force was considered to be brutal and inhuman shows
that the reasons therefore were not individual. All individual members of a
force just cannot be alike. One easily identifiable reason was lack of training
and encouragement to the members of lower ranks of the police on whom the
entire responsibility of carrying out investigation lay. The only thing expected
of them was to show quick results as a mark of loyalty to their European
superiors. The superior officers did not come in contact with the public and the
lower rank officers were never oriented towards getting assimilated vyith +V-\ a
VliV
masses. This was the position before independence. This system was therefore
thrust upon a policeman who have no option but to carryon the traditions. Can
accept the system since they have to work within it they are heldf to be
137
untrustworthy and are looked down upon by the legislators the Government
and the judiciary alike pushing them further deep into the vicious circle.
Shailendra Mishra describes the phenomenon as growth of a subculture
a comer their backs to the wall.” He points out that people except policeman to
beat up and torture goondas and when this is not done charge of corruption and
briery are hurled. During the course of handling agitations policemen suffer
injuries but at the end of it all while cases against toady elements who had
burnt buses destroyed private and public property and assaulted and hurt
policemen are withdrawn a mounting demand is made for a judicial inquiry
against police brutality. No appreciation is shown for the day and night work
rendered by them on occasions of natural calamities religious festivals fairs
and public gatherings. The diurnal condemnation of all and every policeman
the manifest presumption that they are all corrupt and inefficient the summary
and also by the public whose security and safety is their main job. There is
therefore little wonder that whenever they have a chance they try to salvage
their self respect by being aggressive and rude. This is by no means meant to
justify the rudeness and brutality of the police. There can be no disputing the
proposition that police brutality and corruption are the most deplorable blots
138
on the face of this largest democracy of the world and have to be completely
weeded out before we call ourselves civilized and cultured. The point sought
the problem by further lowering the morale of the policemen and thus, inviting
more reaction. It is on the other hand much more likely that if faith is reposed
in them, they shall respond in a more responsible manner. Once their self-
respect is restored, the growth of the subculture of brutality may be checked.
the following words : “.... May be in later years, community confidence and
consciousness will regard the police force as entitled to better trust and soften
It is humbly submitted that the time has arrived. Even if not for the
reason that the police have won the confidence of the people then because
distrust has failed to provide a solution and has in fact proved counter
productive. , ,
particular offence. It does not bar the police form recording the confession
anyway. The police can still record a confession. In fact they are duty bound to
91
AIR 1978 SC 1025.
uy
Cr. P.C. which debars the police even from cautioning the accused that he is
not bound to make a confession. The confession recorded under the mandate
Section 162 Cr. P.C. Nevertheless it has to be recorded. Thus, all means of
oppression and torture are still open to the police for the purpose of extorting a
confession. Inadmissibility of such confession trial does not take away this
power from the. And, if they can find some loophole, something that can
make’ at least a part of this confession admissible in evidence also the whole
The two dubious reasons why the police record confessional statements
are:
(ii) To book the accused on the basis of the confession and get quick
Both these purposes are remarkably achieved with the aid of Section 27 the
police still have a motive for oppressing torturing or otherwise influencing the
material evidence is still admissible. The court held in Radha Krishan v. State
140
of U.P92 that illegality in search and seizure does not affect the admissibility
of the India. A person can be arrested and his liberty curtailed on the basis of a
procurable one the same can be obtained from the market and easily planted
the weapon of offence can be easily planted. Even in cases of blind accidents
the offending vehicle can be shown to have been first discovered on the basis
police atrocities.
92
AIR 1963 SC 822,
93
AIR 1980 SC 593.
94
From the writer’s experience working as an Advocate in High Court of Delhi.
141
It is submitted that neither the total exclusion call be justified, nor can
the provisions like Section 27 Evidence Act and Section 163(2) Cr. P.C. which
by themselves reduce the so called total exclusion to a mockery. The solution
lies in restoring to the police their dignity and self-respect by reposing trust in
this account should divest the concerned officer of his powers to investigate
offences. This can, however be effectively achieved only if all investigations
are made by senior and more responsible officers alone. It is also important
that these officers work under general legal guidance and so long as they
remain in the investigative wing are not involved in other routine activities
accused even if it is the sole link between him and the circumstantial evidence
laurels they had won for their loyalty to their former masters, turned into
stigmas their services to the Government that was alien now alienated them
142
and their past modes and mores hung heavily with them as they sought fresh
not an admissible evidence, hence can not taken into consideration for the
conviction of the accused. Further the confession made in the police custody
or in the presence of the police officer is also not relevant. In other words the
custodial confession is not relevant piece of evidence, hence not admissible.
But not the question arises what amounts to custodial confession and what is
the scope of custodial confession. A brief study about the custodial confession
governed by Sections 25 and. 26 of the Evidence Act. The total exclusion rule
has been justified on the basis of unreliability of .the police for according to
this case, it was observed that even statements containing admission of gravely
provisions of Section 25. Thus where a man accused of murder said, “The
deceased broke into my house and attacked me with a sword and I killed him
of our statutes, as used in Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the first
requisite is to know what is meant by the term Police. According to the
definition of the word ‘Police’ in the Police Act (V of 1861) all those persons
who are enrolled under that Act are included within that term. These include
inferior police officers and superior police officers. Therefore, the expression
Criminal Procedure Code including all ranks of the police with powers
of the regularly constituted police force starting fro a constable to the highest
96
R. v. Macdonald, 10 B.L.R. App. 2.
144
the special bench of the Patna High Court, it was held that the term “Police-
officers and police officers alone and to no class of persons other than the
police officers. But it has been the accepted view of most of our High Courts
that this term is not restricted to officers of the regular police force but to
members of the other Government departments so as to give it a liberal
interpretation.98 The Supreme Court has also held likewise in a series of
decided cases.99 ,
The Supreme Court in Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar,100 held that
what is pertinent to bear in mind for the purpose of determining as to who can
be regarded a “Police-officer” for the purposes of the provision embodied in
Section 25 Evidence Act, is not the totality of the powers which an officer
enjoys but the kind of powers which the law enables him to exercise. The test
officer which are conferred on him or which are exercisable by him, establish
a direct or substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by Section 25
of the Evidence Act. i.e. the recording of a confession. In other words, the test
would be whether the powers are such as to tend to facilitate the obtaining by
him of a confession from a suspect or a delinquent. If they do then it is
unnecessary to consider the dominant purpose for which he is appointed or the
upon him are of a very limited character and are not by themselves sufficient
to facilitate the obtaining by him of a confessions. The view was upheld din
the case of Laxman Padma v. State.101
In Q.E. v. Salemudin,m it has been held that the expression ‘police
officer’ used in Section 25 is not limited to officers of the regular police but
Inspector of Customs106 are also not police officers. It has been held in State of
powers similar to those of police officers but they can still not be equated with
police officers for the purpose of this provision Ram Jethmalani argues that
custom officers should also be taken as police officers and confessions made
before them should be made inadmissible.108 It is however, submitted that the
alleged unreliability of the police, being the sole justification propounded for
the total exclusion created by Section 25 the term police officer should not be
or unreliability has not been tested. They are certainly persons in authority and
cannot be allowed to compel, coerce or induce any person to make a
anything further being done by that person or without the police having had
a police officer” does not merely cannot ‘the making of a statement in the
abstract or only notionally but contemplates some, positive nexus between the
109 The same would be the position under the provisions of Section 162, Criminal Procedure
Code
'147
police officer during the course of investigation but with the making of or
bringing into existence whereof the police had no direct or indirect hand or
connotation of any sort, till it was so recovered. In such a case the
intended to commit suicide and kept the statement in his pocket in order that it
may be found from him after his death and the police may know the truth. The
court held in Himmat Singh Bhadar Singh v. State,110 that it would be
make that statement to the police. Even, if it were possible to assume from the
language used that when he wrote it out, he had an intention to go to the police
and hand it over as his statement or when the police came to arrest him to hand
it over even then the fact that he did not do either would show that he had no
statement cannot be said to have been made to the police. A letter addressed to
the Sub-Inspector was signed by the accused in Urdu*111 it reads thus:
Nobody else perpetrated this crime. I would appear myself after 20 or 25 days
and then will state everything. One day the law will extend its hands and will
This letter was found on a table near the dead body of Sindura Rani.
The appellant challenged the admissibility of this letter on the around that it
the letter contains a confession and is also addressed to a police officer but the
police officer was not nearby when the letter was written or knew that it was
being written. In such circumstances quite obviously the letter would not have
been a confession to the police officer if the words “Sub-Inspector” had been
written there. It would, still have not been a confession made to a police
officer for the simple reason that it was not so made from any point of view. It
is, therefore, clear that there must be some communication to a police officer
for the purpose of showing that the statement made to a police officer.
Evidence Act would not apply to it even though a police officer may have
overheard it. If the accused made a statement before he was accused for any
offence, to a private individual, in the presence of a chowkidar, whom the
court termed as; a police officer but the statement was made without any
pressure or questioning by the chowkidar to the accused. In Emperor v.
112
AIR 1965, Gujarat 5.
149
Shankar,113 the court said that it is not right to hold that a confession made to a
evidence, yet where it is not shown that he chowkidar has in any way
influenced the accused, who is not in custody to make a confession and where
a chowkidar has taken no part in bringing about the confession of the accused,
then such a confession made to a villager in the presence of a chowkidar
would not come within the mischief sought to be averted by Section 25,
offence other than the one under investigation during the investigation of the
latter offence is inadmissible. For example if A says to the police officer. “I
noticed B murdering X while I was murdering Z.” There is a confession of A
that he murdered Z. As it is undoubtedly a confession made to a police officer
even though made during the investigation of the murder committed by B. It is
inadmissible under Section 25, Evidence Act. in re Elukuri Seshapani
Chetty,m the court said that the whole spirit of Section 25. Evidence Act is to
exclude confession to the police and the movement a statement is found to
amount a confession it matters not in the slightest of what crime it is said to be
a confession. The provisions of Section 25 are unqualified. It indicates an
absolute rule of exclusion relating to confession made to a police officer.
4.30 Confession made in the F.I.R. is Inadmissible
When an accused himself turns up at the police station and lodges the
First Information Report with regard to an offence committed by him the fact
of his giving the information is admissible against him as res gestae. If the
crime with which he is charged and the facts reacted therein are self-
inculpatory in the sense that the narrative describing the relation between the
accused and the deceased gives the motive for the crime with which the
In Legal Ram v. Lalit,m it was held that the confessional part and the non
confession of the accused pure and simple in the First Information Report
made by him, the entire First Information Report is inadmissible in evidence.
If in addition to the confession it contains certain other matters which are
relevant to the inquiry in the crime they may be taken into evidence as
admission of the accused but care must be taken to see that such statements are
offence is referred to. If the accused has made a confession admitting that he
had committed an offence and at the same time further gives the details of the
preparation which he had made for the commission of the offence. It cannot be
said that the portion that relates to the preparation of the offence or other
read in evidence and only that portion which relates to the actual commission
crime with which he is charged and the facts recited therein are self-
inculpatory in the sense that the narrative describing the relations between the
accused and the deceased gives the motive for the crime with which the
121
49C 167.
122
AIR 1962 Raj. 3.
152
Report given by the accused being a statement disclosing motive for the crime
is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.123
includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of
extent that the ban of Section 25 is lifted by Section 27. The court said that not
even a single case of this Court or of the Privy Council is there on the question
which may suggest that apart form Section 27 of a confessional First
123
Ram Sajiwany. State, AIR 1964 AIL 447.
124
AIR 1939 P.C. 47.
153
the rule of total exclusion. When a person commits an offence, his natural
tendency would be to keep away from the police at lest as long as he can
manage. On the other hand a person who has not committed the offence is
least likely to go himself to the police station when the police does not even
fact repentant about it. Then, if he also describes his motive the mode of
commission of the offence etc. there'-is hardly any chance of its being
untruthful. Till the stage of his making this statement, the police has not at all
come into the picture. The statement cannot therefore, be said to have been
influenced by the police in any way directly or indirectly. Thus both the
situations often cited as justification for the rule i.e. the statement may be
involuntary due to the presence of the police and that the statement may be
There is yet another aspect of the matter. In such a case the whole fact
made in the FIR-by the accused. Whatever the accused tells to the police are
all facts which were never in the knowledge of the police and are discovered
for the first time only because of the statement. The whole of the statement
separate question and has to be decided in trial. But total exclusion of such a
statement from being proved can hardly be justified by the reasons given for
of police still further and bars any confessions made by the accused to
accused and to serve as a safeguard for him to feely exercise his option to
make a confession or not except when made in presence of a Magistrate, a
lay down two clear and definite rules. In Section 25 the criteria for excluding a
confession is the answer to the question. “To whom was the confession
made?”, if the answer is that it was made to a police officer, the confession is
absolutely excluded from evidence. On the other hand the criterion adopted in
Section 26 is the answer to the question. “Under what circumstances was the
confession made?” If the answer is that it was made whilst the accused'was in
custody of a police officer the law lays clown that such confession shall be
Magistrate. .
would therefore be seen that the immediate presence of the custodian is not
necessary. !
In Parho Sahiwal v. Emperor,121 it was held that the word custody has
not been defined in the Evidence Act. But the ordinal meaning is sufficiently
clear. Two things there must be first there must be some limitation imposed
upon the liberty of the confessor; secondly this limitation must be imposed
custody if the accused is present before the police and cannot depart as his
own free will. It must be pointed out that there is a distinction between an
accused being “under arrest” and an accused being “in custody”. The learned
judge pointed out the danger of construing the expression police custody in
learned judge said that the correct interpretation would be that as soon as an
accused or suspected person comes into the hands of a police officer he is in
the absence of any clear and unmistakable evidence to the contraiy, no longer
27 of the Evidence Act. Even indirect control over the movements or suspects
by the police would amount to “Police Custody” within the meaning of this
Section.129
In Jai Ram Ojha v. State,130 a constable who was engaged on beat duty
in neighbouring village soon after committing of the offence, came to the spot,
kept guard over the dead body , as some foul play was suspected. He was also
guarding the accused so that he may not run away. It was held by the court that
the accused was under surveillance or the police constable and that any
goes to a police officer and makes a statement which shows that an offence has
been committed, by him. The accuses himself and though formally he is not
arrested since he is not fee to move wherever he likes after disclosure of the
information to the police he must be deemed to be in police custody. The fact
that the accused was interrogated and that he made a statement and led the
panchas and the police officei; to a field and therefore, produced certain articles
which were the subject matter of dacoity was sufficient to establish that there
was submission on his part to, police custody. It was held in Bakshia Mukila v.
State ofBombay}33
In short it can be said that it is now well settled that “Police Custody”
for the purpose of Section 26 or Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean
formal custody but includes such State of affairs in which the accused can be
131
AIR 1960 SC 1145.
132
AIR 1959 Bom. 534.
133
AIR 1950 Bom. 263.
157
said to have been under some sort of surveillance or restriction and does not
commence only when the accused is arrested but would commence from the
moment when his movements are restricted and he is kept in some sort of
direct or indirect police surveillance.134
custody has commenced the mere fact that for a temporary period the police
discretely withdraws from the scene and left the accused in of some other
person will not render the confession of the accused before that person
custody the mere fact that for, some purpose of other the police officer happens
to be temporarily absent and during his temporary absence leaves the accused
in charge of a private individual does not terminate his custody the accused
shall be deemed to be still in police custody.136
held the suspected person or the accused under legal custody or under an
illegal custody. An illegal custody is ‘custody’ for the purpose of Section 26.
of the police suffers from the same defects which Section 26. Evidence Act
does not make Section 26, Evidence Act inapplicable. In fact, there is more
The crucial test, therefore, is whether at the time when a person makes
134
Chottelal v. State AIR 1954 All. 687.
135
AIR 1964 Orr. 144.
136
Emperor v. Nat Jagia (1938) 17 Pat. 369.
158
requirements of this section but if the confessor is made to a third person the
presence of the Magistrate is necessary. It was further held in Jograj v. R.m
that the section does not make the admissibility of the confession dependent
upon the knowledge of the accused as to the identity of the Magistrate, the
main consideration being the presence of the Magistrate and the making of the
ignorance of the accused about the presence of the Magistrate still not remove
the traumatic influence of police custody from his mind for him to exercise his
free will within the matter of making a confession. The confession made in the
presence of a Magistrate does not become inadmissible for the mere reason
that the accused had been in the custody of the armed constable. Ordinarily a
Magistrate should not keep the accused in charge of the armed policeman
unless for reasons to be recorded that he is satisfied that there was risk and
danger to life. As far as possible, the accused should be kept in charge of the
Magistrate’s own staff. Where the police officer took the Magistrate with him
for a Magistrate merely to accompany a police officer while the police officer
is making the investigation does not render the evidence of what happened
admissible under the Evidence Act.139
4.36 Magistrate
under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but includes all
Under Section 26 courts are not precluded from taking into consideration
a foreign country the definition of ‘Magistrates’ in the General Clauses Act not
word ‘Magistrate’ used in Section 26 too far. The Act being limited in its
Magistrates though on leave and not in the district in which they have been
Evidence Act to admit the confession. If the same has been made in the
139
Mst. Gajrani v. R. AIR 1933 All. 394.
140
Panchnathan v. R. AIR 1929 Madras 487.
160
It is fairly clear form the plain language of the two provisions that
accused person to any police officer. Thus confessions made to police officers
person are excluded if they are made when the accused was in police custody.
made to a police officer has to be excluded from evidence under Section 25.
Only if the confession is made to the Magistrate himself or to any other person
in his presence, it is admissible under Section 26. The words unless it be made
It is a well settled law that if once police custody has commenced, the
mere fact that for a temporary period the police discretely withdraws form the
scene and left the accused in charge of some other person will not render the
arrested by a police officer and is in his custody, the mere fact that for some
purpose or other the police officer happens to be temporarily absent and during
does not terminate his custody, the accused shall be deemed to be still in
police custody. The test, therefore, is whether at the time when the person
141
R. v. Vahala 7 Bombay H.C. 56.
161
employed by them for the purpose of security of such a confession. With the
above study it seems that the relevance of the statement of the accused is an
important fact in conviction of the accused. But there are various factors
involved in the relevance of the statement of the accused. A brief study about
the relevance of the statement of the accused made in the next chapter.
—o —