Police Patil Is Not A Police Officer, Confession Made Before Him Admissible: Bombay HC
Police Patil not being a police officer and the admissibility of confessions made before him, as held by the Bombay High Court, along with relevant case laws and reasoning
Police Patil Is Not A Police Officer, Confession Made Before Him Admissible: Bombay High Court
1. Introduction
A Police Patil is traditionally a village-level official in Maharashtra and some other states, appointed to assist the police in maintaining law and order but does not hold the status of a police officer under the law.
The question frequently arises in criminal trials whether confessions or statements made before a Police Patil can be treated as admissible evidence, particularly under Section 164 of the CrPC or otherwise.
The Bombay High Court has clarified this legal position in several judgments, emphasizing that since a Police Patil is not a police officer, confessions made before him are not hit by the provisions that exclude confessions before police officers and hence are admissible.
2. Legal Position
a) Police Patil Not a Police Officer
Police officers are defined by statute and possess certain powers and duties, including investigation and arrest.
Police Patil is a village-level functionary, appointed by local authorities, who acts as a link between the police and villagers but does not possess any statutory powers of a police officer.
Therefore, confessions or statements recorded before a Police Patil do not attract the restrictions imposed on confessions made before police officers.
b) Confessions Made Before Police Patil Are Admissible
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act states that confessions made to a police officer are generally inadmissible except in certain situations.
Since a Police Patil is not a police officer, confessions made before him are not barred by Section 25.
The confessions made before the Police Patil can be considered voluntary statements and are admissible as evidence, subject to other usual conditions regarding voluntariness and absence of coercion.
3. Bombay High Court's Observations
The Bombay High Court has repeatedly observed that Police Patils do not have the status of police officers within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act or Section 164 CrPC.
The Court held that confessions or statements recorded by a Police Patil are not invalid or inadmissible merely because they were recorded by him.
4. Relevant Case Laws
a) State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan Chikaji Khandagale, AIR 1973 Bom 76
The Bombay High Court held that Police Patil is not a police officer.
Confession or statements made before a Police Patil are admissible in evidence.
The Court emphasized the distinction between a police officer and a Police Patil, rejecting the claim that such confessions are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
b) Ganpat Govind Bahirat v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 Bom 77
It was held that a Police Patil is a village-level functionary and cannot be equated with a police officer.
Statements made before a Police Patil do not attract the bar of inadmissibility under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
c) Vithalbhai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1953 Bom 262
The court clarified that confessions made before a Police Patil, being an independent witness, are not inadmissible like those made before a police officer.
Therefore, they can be taken into consideration as evidence.
5. Judicial Reasoning and Practical Implications
The law aims to prevent police officers from coercing confessions during investigation, which is why confessions made before police officers are mostly inadmissible.
Police Patil, being a non-police village functionary, is not invested with investigative powers and is seen more as a neutral party.
Hence, statements or confessions made before him carry greater reliability in the eyes of law.
However, as with any confession, the prosecution must prove that such confession was voluntary and not made under duress or coercion.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Who is Police Patil? | Village-level official assisting police, no statutory police powers |
| Is Police Patil a Police Officer? | No, not recognized as police officer under law |
| Effect on Confessions | Confessions before Police Patil are admissible |
| Relevant Sections | Section 25 Evidence Act (does not apply to Police Patil) |
| Bombay HC Cases | Gajanan Chikaji Khandagale, Ganpat Govind Bahirat, Vithalbhai |
| Reasoning | Prevent misuse of police powers, Police Patil is neutral |
7. Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s consistent view is that a Police Patil is not a police officer, and hence confessions or statements made before him are not barred under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. These confessions can be used as evidence in trial, provided they are voluntary and reliable. This distinction protects accused persons from potential coercion by police officers, while still allowing statements before neutral village functionaries to be considered.
RELATED Blog
0 comments