Sunday 6 March 2016

Relevancy of `Confession' in criminal proceeding

 Relevancy of confession in Criminal Trial : Section 24 to 30 of Indian Evidence Act deal with relevancy of `Confession' in criminal proceeding. Term `confession' has not been defined in Indian Evidence Act. Most acceptable definition of term `confession' was given by Privy Council in Pakala Narain Swamy v. Empr. AIR 1939 P.C. 47 Wherein it was observed:
"No statement that contains a self exculpatory matter can amount to confession, if exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed.... a confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence." Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act says:
"A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appears to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him." In Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 1167Supreme Court had observed that to attract prohibition enacted in Section 24 of Evidence Act, following facts must be established
(1) Statement in question is a confession
(2). Such confession is made by accused person
(3) It has been made to a person in authority
(4) Confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority
(5) Inducement, threat or promise, must in the opinion of court be sufficient to give accused grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making of it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in reference to proceedings against him.
Section 25 of Evidence Act then provide `No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence and Section 26 of Act says `No confession made by any person whilst he is in custody of police officer unless it be made in immediate presence of magistrate shall be proved as against such person. Section 27 of Evidence Act then provides"Provided that when any fact is deposed as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of police officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered, may be proved". In Inayatulla v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 483 It was observed by Supreme Court that Section 2425 and 26 exclude confession under certain circumstance. Section 24 lays down that if the confession appears to have been caused by threat, or promise, or inducement, it cannot be proved. Section 25 lays down that confession made to the police officer cannot be proved against an accused. Section 26 lays down that a confession made by any person while in custody of a police officer to any person other than a Magistrate will not be proved. Section 27 is a proviso, that is, a controlling Section and furnishes an exception to the Rule of excluding the confession. It lays down that a confession is admissible if it leads to the discovery of some fact.
In Jaffar Hussain Dastgir v. State of Maharashtra (1969)2 SCC 872, It was observed "The essential ingredient of Section 27 is that information given by accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is direct outcome of such information secondly. Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with said discovery is admissible against accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must relate to commission of some offence."
Section 28 of Evidence Act then says "If such a confession as is referred to in Section 24 is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court been fully removed it is relevant. Section 29 of the Act says "If such a confession is otherwise relevant it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy or in consequence of deception practiced on the accused person for the person of obtaining it or when he was drunk or because it was made in answer to question which he need not to have answered, whatever may have been the form of those question or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession and that the evidence of it might be given against him." In Rangappa Hanamppa v. State, AIR 1954 Bom 285 Held Section 29 assumes that there is no bar to the admissibility of the confession in question arising from any of the earlier provision i.e. from Section 24 to 26 and it then proceeds to invalidate or negative other positive objections or bars that may be raised against its admissibility. Reference may be made of State of U.P. v. Singara Singh AIR 1964 SC 358. Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act provide that "when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession."

No comments:

Post a Comment