Confession Made In Police Custody Cannot Be Relied On To Hold Accused Guilty: Punjab And Haryana High Court
Legal explanation of the principle laid down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court that:
"Confession made in police custody cannot be relied on to hold the accused guilty."
This doctrine is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence and is deeply embedded in judicial reasoning to ensure fair trial, protection of individual liberty, and prevention of misuse of police powers.
๐น Meaning of the Principle:
A confession is a statement by an accused admitting guilt.
When such a confession is made:
While the accused is in police custody, and
To a police officer, or in a manner influenced by police presence or pressure
Then, the law presumes such a confession to be involuntary or unreliable, unless corroborated by independent evidence.
Therefore, such a confession cannot, by itself, be used to convict an accused person.
๐น Judicial Reasoning Behind This Principle:
Involuntariness of Custodial Confessions:
An accused in police custody is vulnerable to coercion, intimidation, or inducement.
Even if not physically tortured, psychological pressure can render the confession involuntary.
Presumption of Innocence:
The justice system is built on the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Confessions made in police custody without safeguards offend this presumption.
Protection Against Abuse of Power:
To prevent misuse of authority by police, courts insist that any confession must be made voluntarily and, ideally, before a magistrate.
๐น Case Law from Punjab and Haryana High Court (without external statutory references):
๐ Case: Surinder Kumar v. State of Haryana (Hypothetical Reference for Explanation)
Facts:
The accused was arrested in a theft case.
While in custody, he allegedly confessed to the crime before the investigating officer.
No independent witnesses were present.
The trial court convicted him based on that confession alone.
Held:
The High Court set aside the conviction.
It ruled that a confession made in police custody to a police officer, without judicial oversight or corroboration, has no evidentiary value.
Such a statement, even if recorded in writing, is inadmissible unless independently confirmed by reliable evidence.
Observation:
โThe very nature of police custody renders any confession suspect. Courts must refuse to place reliance on such statements unless the prosecution establishes its voluntariness beyond doubt and supports it with other material evidence.โ
๐น Other Judicial Observations (from similar High Court judgments):
No conviction can be based solely on a confession made in custody.
Corroboration from independent evidence is necessary (such as recovery of stolen property, weapons, witness testimony).
The burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the confession was made voluntarily and truthfully.
๐น Important Principles Emerging from Case Law:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Confession in custody is suspect | It may result from coercion or fear |
| Requires corroboration | Cannot be the sole basis for conviction |
| Judicial confession preferred | A confession before a magistrate carries more weight |
| Protection of rights | The principle upholds the right to a fair trial and due process |
๐น Illustrative Example (Hypothetical):
If "A" is arrested for murder and during police interrogation in custody, he confesses to the crime, but:
No recovery is made
No eyewitness supports the confession
The confession is not recorded before a magistrate
Then, as per the High Courtโs principle, this confession alone is not enough to convict "A".
๐น Conclusion:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rightly reiterated that:
โConfession made in police custody is inherently unreliable and cannot form the sole basis of conviction.โ
This serves as a vital check against misuse of power, ensures that justice is not compromised by fear or coercion, and protects the fundamental rights of the accused.
RELATED Blog
0 comments