Confession Before Police And Admissibility
What is a Confession?
A confession is a voluntary admission by an accused person, either oral or written, acknowledging guilt for the offence.
Confessions can be made to a magistrate, police officer, or any other person.
Confession Before Police
A confession made to a police officer is different from a confession made to a magistrate.
The law treats confession to police with strict caution due to the possibility of coercion, torture, or inducement.
Legal Position on Admissibility of Confession Before Police
Under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a confession made to a police officer is not a valid confession.
Section 25 of the Evidence Act further declares that such confession is irrelevant in criminal trials.
The rationale: Police officers have an interest in the prosecution; confessions to them might be forced or fabricated.
When Can a Confession Before Police be Used?
Confession to police cannot be used as substantive evidence against the accused.
It may be used for leading evidence to obtain further evidence or as a clue to investigate.
Courts generally do not rely on confession to police for conviction unless corroborated by independent evidence.
Important Case Law on Confession Before Police and Its Admissibility
1. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
Facts:
The Supreme Court discussed the safeguards against self-incrimination and the admissibility of confessions.
Holding:
The Court held that confession to police is not admissible as evidence.
It emphasized the right against self-incrimination.
Coerced or involuntary confessions are void.
Significance:
Reinforced the protection of accused against police coercion.
Affirmed Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act.
2. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003)
Facts:
Conviction was challenged on the ground that the confession was made to police.
Issue:
Whether confession to police can be sole basis for conviction?
Holding:
Supreme Court held that confession before police is inadmissible.
Such confession cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
Conviction must be based on corroborative evidence.
Significance:
Strictly restricted reliance on police confessions.
Emphasized corroboration for conviction.
3. Ram Narayan Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2017)
Facts:
Confession was made to police during interrogation.
Holding:
The court reiterated that confession to police is inadmissible.
Court acquitted accused where conviction was solely based on police confession.
Significance:
Affirmed that courts must scrutinize evidence beyond police confessions.
4. Rameshwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1957)
Facts:
An accused confessed to police and later retracted in court.
Holding:
The court said that confessions before police are not evidence.
The confession cannot be used to incriminate without corroboration.
Significance:
Reinforced inadmissibility principle.
5. Niranjan Singh v. State of Punjab (1955)
Facts:
This case dealt with confessions made under duress to police.
Holding:
The court held that involuntary confession made to police is not admissible.
Court must ensure confession was voluntary.
Significance:
Introduced the test of voluntariness.
6. Kishan Rao v. State of Maharashtra (1966)
Facts:
Confession was made during police custody without magistrate present.
Holding:
The court ruled such confessions inadmissible.
Confirmed requirement of magistrate's presence under CrPC Section 164.
Significance:
Confession before magistrate is more reliable.
Police confession given no evidentiary value.
7. Dinesh Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. (2002)
Facts:
Accused alleged confession made to police under coercion.
Holding:
The court highlighted importance of voluntariness.
Confession before police cannot be accepted if any coercion is proved.
Significance:
Reiterated protection against forced confessions.
Summary Table of Key Legal Principles
| Case Name | Legal Principle |
|---|---|
| Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani | Confession to police is inadmissible; right against self-incrimination |
| State of UP v. Rajesh Gautam | Police confession alone cannot lead to conviction |
| Ram Narayan Meena v. Rajasthan | Courts must seek evidence beyond police confession |
| Rameshwar v. MP | Police confession needs corroboration to be relied upon |
| Niranjan Singh v. Punjab | Confession must be voluntary and not coerced |
| Kishan Rao v. Maharashtra | Confession before magistrate is admissible; police confession not |
| Dinesh Pratap Singh v. UP | Coerced police confession inadmissible |
Additional Points
Section 164 of CrPC: Confession to magistrate recorded under this section has evidentiary value.
Custodial confessions: Confession made in police custody without magistrate presence is generally inadmissible.
Courts are vigilant to prevent torture, coercion, and violation of human rights through forced confessions.
Conclusion
Confession made before police is inadmissible as evidence due to risk of coercion.
Conviction cannot rest solely on police confession.
Confession must be voluntary, free from inducement, and preferably made before magistrate.
Courts require corroboration from independent evidence before convicting based on confession.
RELATED Blog
0 comments