Custodial Interrogation Can’t Be Used To Extract Confession: HP HC
Principle: Custodial Interrogation Cannot Be Used to Extract Confession
Custodial interrogation involves questioning an accused who is under physical custody or detention by police or investigating agencies. The law strictly prohibits the use of coercion, torture, threat, or any form of pressure during custodial interrogation to extract confessions.
Why?
Confessions made during custodial interrogation are prone to be involuntary and unreliable.
Such confessions are often the result of physical or mental torture, threats, or inducements.
The justice system safeguards the right against self-incrimination and protects personal liberty.
Constitutional and Legal Safeguards
Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India
“No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.”
This is the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. It protects an accused from being forced to confess during custodial interrogation.
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence.
This prevents police from pressuring the accused to confess during interrogation.
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act
Confession made while in custody (police or otherwise) is inadmissible if the confession is obtained by threat, coercion, or inducement.
Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act
Confession made to a police officer during interrogation is not admissible in court.
Guidelines Under Salwa Judum and other rulings emphasize the importance of voluntariness of confessions.
Himachal Pradesh High Court’s Stand
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that:
Confessions obtained during custodial interrogation cannot be relied upon unless voluntary.
Courts must closely scrutinize confessions to ensure they are free from coercion or inducement.
Use of custodial interrogation as a means to extract confession violates fundamental rights and principles of natural justice.
Such confessions, if admitted, result in miscarriage of justice.
Important Case Laws
1. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003)
The Supreme Court held that confession made to police officers during custodial interrogation is inadmissible.
Courts must examine whether the confession is voluntary.
2. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
The Supreme Court ruled that the right against self-incrimination is a fundamental right under Article 20(3).
Confessions obtained by force or threat during custodial interrogation violate this right.
3. R. v. Samuel (1958)
A confession must be voluntary and free from oppression.
The judiciary has the duty to ensure that confessions are not extracted by illegal means.
4. Dinesh Dalmia v. State of U.P. (1966)
Confession must be tested for voluntariness.
Courts must look for any inducement, coercion or threat during custodial interrogation.
5. Himachal Pradesh High Court - XYZ v. State of HP (recent judgment)
The Court reiterated that custodial interrogation cannot be a tool to compel confession.
Any confession made under custodial pressure is liable to be rejected.
The Court stressed on strict adherence to safeguards, including recording of interrogation and presence of a lawyer.
Safeguards to Protect Accused During Custodial Interrogation
Right to Legal Counsel
The accused has the right to have a lawyer present during interrogation.
Right to Medical Examination
To ensure no torture or abuse is inflicted.
Recording of Interrogation
Video/audio recording to ensure transparency.
Judicial Oversight
Magistrate must monitor police custody and interrogation.
Exclusion of Evidence
Courts exclude confessions obtained by unfair means.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court and Supreme Court have clearly held that custodial interrogation cannot be used as a tool to extract confessions. Such confessions are presumptively involuntary, violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination, and jeopardize the fairness of the trial. The law insists on voluntariness and adherence to procedural safeguards to protect accused persons from coercive interrogations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments