Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
2 Section 161 reads as: Examination of witnesses by police. (1) Any police officer making
an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such ranks as the
State Government may, by general or Special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on
the requisition of such officer may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of the case.
5 | Page
The statements made to the police are not admitted for the purposes
of admissible pieces of evidence as can be traced from reading Section
1623 with Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Statements to police
not are signed: Use of statements in evidence.
A plain reading of sections 61 and 167 of the Cr. P. C reveals that the
police investigation of the offence in the case of a person arrested
without warrant should be completed in the first instance within 24
hours under section 61 or if not then within 15 days under section 167.
Any police officer making an investigation may examine orally
The general English rule that hearsay is no evidence has been enacted
in Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act. The term hearsay is
generally used to indicate the evidence which does not derive its value
from the credit given to the witness himself but which rest also in part
al the veracity and competence of some other person. 4 Hearsay
evidence is considered untrustworthy since the original maker of the
statement is not before the court as a witness. The time lag before the
statement is repeated in the court may introduce distortions. Further
(2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to
him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to
expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.
4 Taylor on Evidence,570.
6 | Page
the original declarant was not put on oath before making the statement
and he is not available in the court or cross-examination.
RELEVANT CONFESSION
fact connected with the crime. The discovery assures that the
confession is true and reliable even if it was extorted. In order to
ensure the genuineness of recoveries; it has become a practice to
recover such evidence in the presence of witnesses. The Indian
Evidence Act was written before the constitution of India and Article 20
(3) of the constitution says that no person shall compel to be a witness
against himself. This article seemingly made section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act unconstitutional. Supreme Court considered this issue in
the of Nisa Stree v. State of Orissa 5, and held that it is not violative
of Article 20(3). The court established that a confession may or may
not lead to the discovery of an incriminating fact. If the discovered fact
is non incriminatory, there is no issue and if it is self-incriminatory, it is
admissible if the information is given by the accused without any
threat.
Section 29 of this Act that says that a relevant confession does not
become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of a
secrecy or in consequences of a deception practiced on the accused
person for the purpose of obtaining or while the accused was drunk or
while answering the questions he need not have answered or when the
accused was not warned that he was not bound to make such
confession and that evidence of it might be given against him.
In Queen Empress v. Babu Lal,6 the Privy Council held that section
24 declares that confession caused by inducement, threat or promise
are irrelevant unless as Section 28 provides, they are made after the
impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has
been fully removed.7 When the legislature wished to make an exception
to absolute rule in Section 24, it did so by a separate Section viz.
Section 28, which declares under what circumstances a confession
rendered irrelevant by Section 24 may become relevant. A confession
made under an inducement that has not been removed within the
meaning of Section 28 is not relevant as a confession under Section 24.
The rule thus laid down is speaking strictly, a rue of relevancy, called
forth by the abstract principles of evidence and not positive prohibition
necessitated by exigencies. Section 24 of Evidence Act is a rule of
exclusion because it declares that a confession made by an accused
person in certain circumstances is Burden of Proof. The words if it
appears to the court as used in Section 24 do at the first instance,
seem to favor a view that the burden of proving involuntariness is on
the accused. In relation to judicial confessions fields opinion is that it is
held to be voluntary unless contrary is shown. 8 In this regard, he holds
that the Indian law differs from the law of England. However, appears
to the court does not by its terms; require positive proof by the
accused. All that it means is that voluntariness of the confession should
not go entirely unchallenged, Once it is pointed out to the court that
the confession was involuntary, with same cogent reasoning so as to
make it quite probable that it was indeed involuntary, the burden on
the accused if any is discharged. As per Wood rofee, it would be more
correct to say that as under Section 3, prudence is to determine
whether a fact exists or not. The use of the word appears while
requiring proof indicates that a lesser degree of such proof is required
in this than in other cases.9
Critical Appraisal
Now it is settled law that the confession made under threat, promise is
not admissible evidence, hence cannot taken into consideration for the
conviction of the accused. Further the confession made in the police
custody or in the presence of the police officer is also not relevant. In
other words the custodial confession is not relevant piece of evidence,
hence not admissible. But not the question arises what amounts to
custodial confession and what is the scope of custodial confession.
Custodial Confessions
Unlike U.K. and U.S.A. Indian legislatures have created a total bar to
admissibility of custodial confessions in evidence. I.e. confessions
made by an accused person to police or to anyone, whilst in police
custody. These are governed by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence
11 | P a g e
Act. The total exclusion rule has been justified on the basis of
unreliability of the police for according to rights of the accused during
interrogation.
13 6A 509 (FB).
13 | P a g e
The Indian Judiciary has admitted the results of these tests 14; however,
experts say they cant even be referred to in a court of law.
Nonetheless, they were conducted to aid investigators in cracking the
cases. The legal experts opine that If a person accused of murder
reveals during such a test that he has hidden his weapon in a particular
place, it may help the police in tracking down the weapon. While the
court may not recognize the test, it may consider the weapon, if found,
as evidence, it means that the information as obtained from the
subjects under the effect of the Truth Serum shall further be utilized for
the purposes of corroboration of the other available evidences or say
for the purposes of collection of evidences15.
14 Nithati killings main accused Moninder Singh Kohli and Stamp Paper scam
kingpin Abdul Karim Telgi.
Technically, it all sounds fine. But questions still abound about the
dependability of these processes. Often the Hardened criminals may
not respond to narco-analysis as easily as first-time offenders, a person
with a criminal bent of mind may remain silent even under the effect of
the truth serum. But the legal fact which remains unabated is that a
nacro-analysis test is not an established method of investigation.
Another aspects of these tests which has drawn flak is their self-
incriminating nature, which comes in direct conflict with the
constitutional right of Indian citizens as guaranteed by Article 20 of the
Indian Constitution. No person accused of any offence shall be
compelled to be a witness against himself,
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:
Articles