Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

BOOKS (/)

BLOGS (HTTP://LAWSTUDENTSHELPLINE.BLOGSPOT.IN/)

ADVERTISMENT TARIFF (/INDEX.PHP/ADVERTISMENT-TARIFF)

CONTACT US (/INDEX.PHP/CONTACT-US)

(/index.php/201210120720
28/indianevidenceact)

Q :- Confession before a police ocer is not a confession . Is there any


exception to this rule ? (/index.php/indian-evidence-act/2uncategorised/148-q-confession-before-a-police-ocer-is-not-aconfession-is-there-any-exception-to-this-rule)
|Print|(/index.php/indianevidenceact/2uncategorised/148qconfessionbeforeapoliceofficerisnota

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:

Stephen defined confession as a statement by the accused suggesting an inference that he


committedthecrime.InEnglishlawthetermAdmissionisusedincivilcaseswhiletheterm
confession is used in criminal cases . The Indian Evidence Act has not defined the term
confession anywhere separately. But as it deals with admissions generally and includes the
statementsofconfessions,itwouldappearthatconfessionsareaspeciesofwhichanadmissionis
thegenus.InPakalaNarayanSwamiscase,thePrivyCouncilheldthatastatement,inorderto
beaconfession,mustadmitintermstheoffenceoratanyratesubstantiallyallthefactswhich
constitute the offence . An admission of a gravely inculpatory fact , or even a conclusively
inculpatoryfact,isnotbyitselfaconfession.Aconfessionistheconclusiveproofofthematters
confessed.Anditalwaysgoesagainstthepersonmakingit.

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.

Civil Procedure Code (/index.php/civilprocedure-code)


Indian Evidence Act (/index.php/indianevidence-act)
Transfer of Property Act
(/index.php/transfer-of-property-act)
Law of Torts (/index.php/law-of-torts)
Law of Contracts (/index.php/law-ofcontracts)
Hindu Law (/index.php/hindu-law)
Muhammadan Law
(/index.php/muhammadan-law)
The Indian Constitution and Constitutional
Law (/index.php/the-indian-constitutionand-constitutional-law)
Form Used In District Court
(/index.php/form-used-in-district-court)


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

, may be proved , though the


information , as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered

information or confession has not been made in the presence


of a Magistrate as required by

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)