Admissibility Of Confessions Under Indian Law
Admissibility of Confessions Under Indian Law
What is a Confession?
A confession is a statement made by an accused person, admitting guilt either fully or partially, relating to the commission of an offense.
Legal Framework Governing Confessions:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) primarily governs the admissibility of confessions.
Key Sections:
Section 24: Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise is irrelevant.
Section 25: Confession made to police officer is not admissible.
Section 26: Confession made to police officer during custody is irrelevant if it relates to the offense.
Section 27: Information received from a confession leading to discovery is admissible.
Section 28: Confession made after torture or unlawful detention is inadmissible.
Section 29: Confession otherwise relevant is not rendered inadmissible by lapse of time.
Section 30: Confession to a police officer not charged with the investigation is relevant.
Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 164 CrPC: Confessions made before Magistrate are recorded under Section 164 and have special evidentiary value.
General Principles for Admissibility of Confessions:
Voluntariness: Confession must be voluntary and not caused by threats, coercion, or inducement (Section 24).
Confession to Police: Confessions to police officers are generally inadmissible (Section 25 & 26).
No Torture or Oppression: Confessions made under torture or oppression are inadmissible (Section 28).
Judicial Confession: Confession made before Magistrate (Section 164 CrPC) carries strong evidentiary value.
Corroboration: Confessions must often be corroborated by independent evidence, especially in capital cases.
Right to Silence and Fair Trial: Courts ensure confessions are not extracted violating constitutional rights.
Landmark Cases on Admissibility of Confessions
1. State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (AIR 1974 SC 1554)
Facts: The case dealt with the voluntariness of confession.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that for confession to be admissible, it must be voluntary and free from coercion or inducement.
The Court emphasized that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the confession was voluntary.
Coercion, threats, or promises will render the confession inadmissible under Section 24.
2. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Facts: The accused was held in police custody and allegedly confessed.
Judgment: The Supreme Court declared the right to silence as a fundamental right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Held that the accused has the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Confession made under compulsion or without proper legal safeguards is inadmissible.
The case reinforced the importance of voluntariness and absence of coercion.
3. Kamal Kishore v. State of M.P. (1969 AIR 1655)
Facts: The issue was the admissibility of confession made to a police officer.
Judgment: The Court held that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 and 26.
The purpose of the provision is to prevent police torture and forced confessions.
4. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010)
Facts: Confession made to a police officer was sought to be admitted.
Judgment: The Supreme Court reiterated that confession to a police officer investigating the case is inadmissible.
However, confession to a non-investigating officer or magistrate is admissible.
The Court emphasized protecting accused from police pressure.
5. K.K. Verma v. Union of India (1955 AIR 549)
Facts: This case involved a confession made before a magistrate.
Judgment: The Court held that a confession made before a magistrate under Section 164 CrPC is presumed to be voluntary.
However, this presumption is rebuttable if proven otherwise.
Confession made before Magistrate has a higher evidentiary value than confession made to police.
6. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) (Regarding Narco, Polygraph Tests)
Facts: The Supreme Court considered confessions and statements made under narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests.
Judgment: The Court held that involuntary statements or confessions extracted through such tests violate Article 20(3) and are inadmissible.
The ruling safeguards against forced confessions through scientific tests.
7. Pillai Rajeev v. Union of India (1994)
Facts: The accused alleged torture to extract confession.
Judgment: The Court held that confessions extracted under duress or torture are inadmissible.
Physical and mental coercion invalidate confessions.
8. Queen-Empress v. A. Ramachandra (AIR 1952 PC 75) (Privy Council Case)
Facts: The accused was threatened to confess.
Judgment: The Privy Council held the confession inadmissible because it was obtained by threat and coercion.
This case influenced Indian courts to insist on voluntariness.
Summary of Admissibility of Confession
| Criteria | Position Under Indian Law |
|---|---|
| Voluntariness | Mandatory; no threat, coercion, or inducement allowed |
| Confession to Police | Generally inadmissible (Section 25 and 26) |
| Confession to Magistrate | Admissible, with presumption of voluntariness |
| Confession under Torture | Inadmissible (Section 28) |
| Confession leading to discovery | Admissible under Section 27 |
| Confession under scientific tests | Inadmissible (Narco, Polygraph, etc.) |
| Burden of proof | On prosecution to prove voluntariness |
| Constitutional safeguard | Article 20(3) - Right against self-incrimination |
RELATED Blog
0 comments