Interrogation And Questioning Rules
Interrogation and Questioning in Criminal Investigations
Definition:
Interrogation is the formal questioning of a suspect or witness by law enforcement officers to obtain facts, confessions, or leads in a criminal case. Proper questioning is crucial to ensure that evidence obtained is admissible and rights of the accused are protected.
Key Principles and Rules:
Voluntariness: Any statement made during interrogation must be voluntary. Coerced or forced confessions are inadmissible.
Right Against Self-Incrimination: Under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, no person shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
Legal Safeguards:
Police must inform the accused of the right to remain silent.
Interrogation must comply with Sections 24, 25, 26, 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (regarding confessions).
Timing and Environment: Interrogation should not be unduly long, conducted under inhumane conditions, or involve threats or inducements.
Recording: Modern law recommends audio-video recording of interrogations for transparency (Section 161(2) CrPC amendment).
Types of Statements:
Confession: Admission of guilt, either to police or court.
Exculpatory Statements: Statements explaining innocence.
Incriminating Statements: Statements providing leads against the accused.
Case Laws on Interrogation and Questioning
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Facts: Accused was questioned for murder, allegedly without legal representation.
Key Issue: Whether the confession obtained during police custody was admissible.
Judgment: Supreme Court held that any statement obtained under coercion, threat, or inducement is inadmissible.
Significance: Reinforced voluntariness principle in confessions.
2. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts: Case involving custodial deaths and improper police interrogation.
Key Issue: Protection of detainees’ rights during interrogation.
Judgment: Supreme Court issued guidelines for arrest and interrogation, including:
Right to inform a relative
Right to be medically examined
Police must maintain a diary of interrogation
Time limits on detention
Significance: Landmark case ensuring humane treatment and transparency in police questioning.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003)
Facts: Accused doctor interrogated in connection with medical negligence.
Key Issue: Whether statements made under indirect pressure can be used.
Judgment: Statements obtained under undue influence or without proper caution were inadmissible.
Significance: Emphasized that interrogation must respect legal safeguards even in professional or white-collar cases.
4. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Facts: Accused was questioned repeatedly without proper legal advice.
Key Issue: Right to avoid self-incrimination.
Judgment: Supreme Court upheld Article 20(3) and stated that repeated questioning that pressures the accused violates constitutional rights.
Significance: Established that repeated or coercive interrogation violates the right against self-incrimination.
5. K. Anbazhagan v. State (2006)
Facts: Accused questioned in police custody, allegedly made statements implicating co-accused.
Key Issue: Admissibility of confession under Section 164 CrPC.
Judgment: Court held that only confessions made before a magistrate (or properly recorded) are fully admissible, whereas police-recorded statements are subject to corroboration.
Significance: Reaffirmed precaution against relying solely on police interrogation for conviction.
6. State of Gujarat v. Hon’ble High Court (1996)
Facts: Accused detained for several days before being questioned.
Key Issue: Delay in interrogation violating legal safeguards.
Judgment: Supreme Court ruled that prolonged pre-questioning detention without informing rights or recording violates Sections 41–50 CrPC.
Significance: Strengthened the requirement of prompt and lawful interrogation.
7. Ram Avtar v. State of Haryana (2009)
Facts: Accused was interrogated at night, allegedly threatened.
Key Issue: Admissibility of nocturnal confessions.
Judgment: Confession obtained under duress, fear, or at unusual hours is inadmissible.
Significance: Reiterated that time, place, and environment of questioning are crucial for validity.
Summary of Rules and Judicial Principles
Voluntary Statements Only: Coerced confessions are inadmissible (Rajesh Gautam, Nandini Satpathy).
Legal Rights: Right to remain silent and legal counsel must be respected (D.K. Basu).
Recording and Documentation: Audio-video recording and proper diary entries ensure credibility.
Magistrate’s Oversight: Confessions to a magistrate (Section 164 CrPC) are more reliable.
Environment Matters: Interrogation must avoid undue pressure, threats, or abnormal hours.
Custodial Safeguards: Arrest and questioning must comply with constitutional rights (Article 20(3)) and CrPC provisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments