IPC Section 128
IPC Section 128 — "Relevancy of Confession to the Person to Whom Made"
Text of Section 128:
A confession made to a police officer shall be irrelevant in a criminal trial, except in cases relating to the discovery of a fact which the person making the confession states himself to have discovered.
Detailed Explanation:
1. What is the core idea of Section 128?
Confessions made to police officers are generally not admissible as evidence in court.
The law aims to prevent forced or coerced confessions that may arise during police custody or interrogation.
However, if the confession leads to the discovery of a new fact (like the location of stolen goods), that fact itself can be used as evidence, even if the confession cannot.
2. Why exclude confessions to police officers?
Police interrogations can sometimes involve pressure or coercion.
To protect individuals’ rights and ensure fair trials, courts do not accept confessions made directly to police officers as proof of guilt.
This discourages police from using unfair tactics.
3. Exception: Discovery of a fact
If the confession reveals a new fact that the confessor claims to have discovered (e.g., where stolen property is hidden), this discovery is relevant and admissible.
The confession itself is not evidence, but the new fact is.
4. Examples
A suspect says to a police officer, “I hid the stolen jewels in the garden.”
The confession ("I hid the jewels") is not admissible.
But if police find the jewels in the garden, the fact of discovery is admissible.
If the suspect confesses to the crime only, that confession alone to the police cannot be used as evidence.
Summary:
Confessions made to police officers are generally inadmissible as evidence.
The discovery of new facts revealed by such confessions can be used as evidence.
This protects suspects from forced confessions while allowing courts to act on concrete facts uncovered.
RELATED Blog
0 comments