Coercion And Confessions
1. Introduction
In criminal law, a confession is an admission of guilt by a person accused of a crime. However, not all confessions are admissible in court. The law distinguishes between voluntary confessions and coerced/confessions obtained under duress, because a confession obtained through coercion, threat, or inducement is unreliable and violates the accused's rights.
Relevant Legal Provisions (India)
Section 24, 25, 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 24: Confession made under inducement, threat, or promise is irrelevant.
Section 25: Confession made to police officer is generally inadmissible.
Section 26: Confession made to police officer while in police custody and later to magistrate may be inadmissible if obtained under coercion.
2. Coercion
Definition:
Coercion refers to forcing someone to act or confess against their will, typically by threats, physical harm, or psychological pressure. Coerced confessions are considered involuntary and are not admissible in court.
Legal Principle:
A confession must be voluntary. If a confession is extracted through fear of injury, threat of punishment, or any form of inducement, it will be treated as void under Section 24.
3. Confessions
A confession is a statement made by an accused admitting guilt. Confessions can be:
Judicial Confessions – Made before a magistrate; usually admissible if voluntary.
Extra-judicial Confessions – Made before someone other than a magistrate; admissible if voluntary and reliable.
Key Principle:
The courts are very careful in admitting confessions, as false confessions can occur due to fear, coercion, or torture.
4. Important Case Laws
Here are more than five key cases explaining coercion and confessions:
(i) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Facts: The accused claimed his confession to the police was extracted under threat.
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized that confession must be voluntary. Any confession made under threat, inducement, or coercion is inadmissible. The court set aside the conviction based on coerced confession.
Principle: Coerced confessions are legally irrelevant.
(ii) Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Facts: The accused argued that her confession to the police was coerced.
Held: The Supreme Court held that no person can be forced to confess against their will, and the burden is on the prosecution to prove voluntariness.
Principle: A confession made in police custody is inadmissible unless the prosecution proves it was voluntary.
(iii) Kathi Kalu Oghad v. State of Bombay (1961)
Facts: Accused alleged that his confession was extracted by police threat.
Held: The court held that even subtle pressure or fear constitutes coercion. The confession must be free from fear, threat, or hope of advantage.
Principle: Voluntariness is the cornerstone of admissibility.
(iv) Ram Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1972)
Facts: Confession was obtained after prolonged police interrogation.
Held: The court held that prolonged detention and interrogation amount to coercion. The confession was ruled inadmissible.
Principle: Physical or mental pressure invalidates confession.
(v) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003)
Facts: Accused claimed that confession to police was under threat.
Held: Supreme Court ruled that for a confession to be admissible, it must be voluntary, and the accused must be aware of their rights.
Principle: Awareness and free will are essential; coercion negates voluntariness.
(vi) Lallu Yeshwant Singh v. State of U.P. (1978)
Facts: Confession made after inducement by promise of leniency.
Held: The court held that any promise or hope of advantage leads to inadmissibility of confession.
Principle: Inducements, threats, or promises render a confession invalid under Section 24.
(vii) Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – Mental Coercion
Facts: Confession obtained during narco-analysis and brain mapping.
Held: Supreme Court held that confession under scientific methods without consent is coerced, violating constitutional rights (Article 20(3) – protection against self-incrimination).
Principle: Coercion need not be physical; mental or scientific coercion also invalidates confession.
5. Summary of Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Voluntariness | Confession must be made without fear, threat, or inducement |
| Burden of proof | Prosecution must prove voluntariness if challenged |
| Extra-judicial confessions | Admissible only if voluntary and reliable |
| Confessions in police custody | Generally inadmissible unless made before a magistrate voluntarily |
| Mental coercion | Includes psychological pressure, inducements, or scientific methods |
6. Conclusion
Coerced confessions are inherently unreliable and violative of the rights of the accused. The courts consistently stress that voluntariness is the sine qua non of admissibility. Across the cases cited, it is clear that:
Threats, inducements, or fear = inadmissible confession.
Prolonged custody or torture = coercion.
Voluntariness and knowledge of rights = essential for admissibility.
The law protects individuals from self-incrimination and ensures that only truthful, voluntary confessions are relied upon to secure convictions.
RELATED Blog
comments