Inadmissible Police Confessions in Depositions May Influence Trial Courts
Inadmissible Police Confessions in Depositions May Influence Trial Courts – Detailed Explanation
1. Background
Under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, any confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence.
The rationale is to prevent the possibility of coerced or involuntary confessions, as custodial pressure may lead to false admissions.
Similarly, Section 26 bars confessions made in police custody unless recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.
⚖️ Despite this clear bar, courts have often observed that even if such confessions are formally inadmissible, their mere presence in depositions or records can subconsciously influence trial courts, creating a risk of miscarriage of justice.
2. Legal Framework
Section 25 Evidence Act: "No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence."
Section 26 Evidence Act: Confession by an accused while in police custody is inadmissible unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Section 27 Evidence Act: Provides a limited exception — if information given by the accused leads to the discovery of a fact, that part of the statement is admissible.
3. Key Judicial Pronouncements
(a) State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (AIR 1962 SC 276)
The SC held that confessions to customs/police officers are inadmissible unless falling under statutory exceptions.
(b) Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra (1977) 3 SCC 68
SC cautioned that even if a confession is inadmissible, trial courts must be careful not to let such statements influence their mind while appreciating other evidence.
(c) Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 134
The entire confession to police is inadmissible, but facts discovered from such confession (Section 27) may be proved.
(d) Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417
SC emphasized that inadmissible confessions recorded by enforcement agencies (like NDPS cases) should not influence trial courts even indirectly.
4. Problem in Practice
Deposition records sometimes contain confessional statements to police even though inadmissible.
Judges, though trained to separate admissible from inadmissible evidence, may be subconsciously influenced by these confessions while forming opinions on guilt.
This creates a risk of bias, undermining the fairness of the trial.
5. Safeguards by Courts
Trial courts must expunge inadmissible portions from depositions.
Appellate courts repeatedly remind trial courts to rely only on legally admissible evidence.
Accused’s right to fair trial (Article 21 of the Constitution) requires strict separation between admissible and inadmissible evidence.
🔹 Case Law: Rafique Ahmed v. State of U.P. (2011) – Courts must not be prejudiced by inadmissible material inadvertently brought on record.
6. Conclusion
While police confessions are inadmissible, their inadvertent presence in depositions can still affect judicial reasoning.
Courts are duty-bound to disregard such evidence completely and base judgments solely on independent, legally admissible evidence.
This principle is crucial to uphold the constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Article 21 and the integrity of the criminal justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments