Judicial Precedents On Confessional Statements Before Police
🏛️ 1. Introduction
A confessional statement is an admission made by an accused person acknowledging guilt for an offense. However, confessions made to the police have always been treated cautiously in Indian criminal jurisprudence, because of the possibility of coercion, inducement, or threat during investigation.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Constitution of India provide safeguards against such misuse.
⚖️ 2. Relevant Legal Provisions
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 24 – Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise is irrelevant.
Section 25 – No confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offense.
Section 26 – Confession made while in police custody is inadmissible unless made before a Magistrate.
Section 27 – Exception: Discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offense while in police custody may be proved (only to the extent it relates to that fact discovered).
Constitution of India
Article 20(3) – No person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a witness against himself (protection against self-incrimination).
🔍 3. Judicial Interpretation
Courts have consistently protected the rights of the accused by excluding confessions made before police officers, except in limited circumstances (e.g., Section 27 discovery). Below are five detailed landmark judgments explaining this principle.
Case 1: Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) AIR PC 47
Court: Privy Council
Facts:
The accused was charged with murder. A statement was made by him to the police before his arrest, and the prosecution attempted to use it as a confession.
Issue:
What constitutes a “confession” under the Evidence Act, and can it be used if made to the police?
Judgment:
The Privy Council defined a confession as an admission that directly or indirectly suggests the inference that the accused committed the offense. It also clarified that any confession to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25, even if made voluntarily.
Significance:
This case gave the classic definition of “confession” and reinforced that police confessions cannot be used against an accused, regardless of voluntariness.
Case 2: State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (1962 AIR 276)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts:
The accused, a customs officer, was charged with corruption. The issue was whether a statement made to another customs officer was admissible as a confession.
Issue:
Is a customs officer a "police officer" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that a customs officer is not a police officer under Section 25 because he has limited powers (e.g., seizure and inquiry but not general power to investigate crime or submit a charge-sheet).
Significance:
The Court restricted the meaning of “police officer” to those who exercise powers under the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, confessions to other authorities like customs or excise officers may, in some cases, be admissible — unless their powers are identical to police powers.
Case 3: State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600
(Commonly known as the Parliament Attack Case)
Facts:
The accused persons were charged under various sections, including the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA). Their confessional statements were recorded by police officers under the provisions of POTA.
Issue:
Whether confessional statements made before police officers under a special law like POTA are admissible.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that since Section 32 of POTA expressly allowed confessions to senior police officers, such statements could be admissible if procedural safeguards (voluntariness, recording before an authorized officer, etc.) were strictly followed.
Significance:
The Court distinguished between ordinary law (Evidence Act) and special laws (like POTA, TADA).
Under normal law, police confessions are inadmissible, but special legislations may carve out exceptions, provided procedural fairness is ensured.
Case 4: Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1094)
Facts:
The accused, a public servant, made a confession before a police officer regarding misappropriation of government funds. Later, he retracted it.
Issue:
Whether a retracted confession made before a police officer can be relied upon.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that a confession made before a police officer cannot be proved against the accused under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Even a retracted confession loses further credibility.
However, the Court stated that facts discovered as a result of such a confession (under Section 27) can be proved to the extent they relate to the discovery.
Significance:
The case reinforced that Section 27 acts only as a limited exception, allowing proof of discovery of material facts, not the entire confession itself.
Case 5: State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (AIR 1960 SC 1125)
Facts:
The accused made a statement to a police officer while in custody, leading to the discovery of incriminating objects.
Issue:
Whether the portion of the statement leading to discovery is admissible under Section 27.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, holding that it is a reasonable restriction on Article 20(3). Only that part of the statement which relates specifically to the fact discovered is admissible.
Significance:
This case became the authoritative interpretation of Section 27, balancing the need for effective investigation with the protection against self-incrimination.
Case 6 (Bonus): Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627
Facts:
The accused persons in the Bhagalpur Blinding case were subjected to police brutality. They alleged that their confessional statements were taken through coercion.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that forced or coerced confessions violate Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 20(3). It also directed that legal aid must be provided to the accused from the time of first production before a magistrate.
Significance:
This case tied the issue of police confessions directly to constitutional protections of human rights and fair trial.
🧩 4. Comparative Summary of Principles
| Legal Principle | Key Case | Doctrine Established |
|---|---|---|
| Definition of confession & inadmissibility before police | Pakala Narayana Swami (1939) | Confession must imply guilt; statements to police inadmissible |
| Police officer defined narrowly for Section 25 | State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (1962) | Only officers with full CrPC powers qualify as “police officers” |
| Confession admissible under special law (POTA) | Navjot Sandhu (2005) | Exceptions possible if statute allows and safeguards exist |
| Discovery exception under Section 27 | Deoman Upadhyaya (1960) | Only discovery-related portion admissible |
| Protection from coerced confessions | Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar (1981) | Forced confessions violate Articles 20(3) & 21 |
🧾 5. Conclusion
The Indian judiciary has consistently upheld the principle that confessions made before police officers are inadmissible, reflecting a deep concern for protecting individual liberty and preventing abuse of power.
Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act categorically bar such confessions.
Section 27 is a narrow exception, allowing discovery-based evidence.
Constitutional safeguards (Articles 20(3) & 21) ensure that no person is compelled to self-incriminate.
Judicial precedents have harmonized these provisions to maintain a balance between effective investigation and fundamental rights.
Hence, in Indian criminal jurisprudence, a confession before police is not evidence of guilt, but sometimes a clue to truth, usable only in a restricted and legally justified manner.
RELATED Blog
comments