Judicial Precedents On Admissibility Of Confessions In Nepal
Legal Framework
In Nepal, the admissibility of confessions is guided primarily by:
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 18(1): Right to personal liberty; protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Article 22(1): Right against self-incrimination.
Article 33: Right to fair trial.
Muluki Criminal Code, 2017
Confessions must be voluntary; coercion, threat, promise, or inducement invalidates them.
Confessions made to a police officer carry less weight unless corroborated.
Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 (Nepal)
Sections 107–112 govern recording of statements and confessions.
Emphasizes the need for judicial scrutiny of confessions before they are admitted as evidence.
Case Law Analysis
Case 1: Bir Bahadur v. Padan Lal
Facts:
Bir Bahadur was accused of theft. During police interrogation, he allegedly confessed to the crime. He later claimed that the confession was extracted under pressure and threat.
Issues:
Whether a confession made to police under alleged threat is admissible in court.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court of Nepal held that mere allegation of coercion does not automatically render a confession inadmissible.
The Court emphasized that voluntariness must be proven based on facts: whether inducement, threat, or promise influenced the accused.
Since the confession was repeated in court without objection, it was considered admissible.
Significance:
Established that the test of voluntariness is fact-specific.
Courts may admit a confession if it appears voluntary, even if the accused alleges coercion.
Case 2: Government of Nepal v. Midhan Bahadur Raske
Facts:
The accused allegedly confessed to committing fraud while in police custody. The defense claimed the confession was extracted by torture.
Issues:
Can a confession obtained in custody be admitted if there is a claim of torture?
Judgment:
The Court stated that a confession obtained under torture cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Since there was no independent evidence corroborating the confession, it was deemed inadmissible.
Significance:
Highlighted the need for corroborative evidence when there is a claim of coercion.
Reinforced the principle that confessions under duress violate constitutional rights.
Case 3: Ram Krishna v. Nepal Police
Facts:
Ram Krishna was accused of embezzlement. During interrogation, he admitted guilt, but later retracted the confession claiming he was threatened.
Issues:
Does retraction of confession affect its admissibility?
Judgment:
The Court observed that a confession retracted in court is not automatically inadmissible, but its evidentiary value is reduced.
Confession must be corroborated with independent evidence to support conviction.
Significance:
Introduced the principle that retracted confessions are admissible but require corroboration.
Case 4: Sita Gurung v. Office of the Attorney General
Facts:
Sita Gurung was accused of corruption. She allegedly confessed during police questioning. She claimed the confession was influenced by threats from officials.
Issues:
Can a confession made under pressure from officials be admitted?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that confessions made under influence of authority figures are highly suspect.
Since there was evidence of coercion, the confession was inadmissible, and the accused was acquitted.
Significance:
Strengthened safeguards against coercion by officials.
Emphasized the importance of voluntariness and free will in confessions.
Case 5: Hari Prasad Dhakal v. Nepal Police
Facts:
Hari Prasad was charged with fraud. He confessed during police interrogation and again in court but claimed the police used inducement and threats.
Issues:
Are confessions to police reliable evidence if inducement is alleged?
Judgment:
The Court held that confession made to police requires corroboration, especially if the accused alleges inducement or threat.
Conviction cannot be based solely on such confession; additional evidence must support it.
Significance:
Affirmed that confessions to police are less reliable than judicial confessions.
Highlighted the Court’s duty to examine the circumstances under which confessions are made.
Case 6: Sunita Thapa v. Government of Nepal
Facts:
Sunita Thapa was accused of financial misconduct. She confessed during interrogation but claimed her confession was coerced.
Issues:
Does constitutional protection against self-incrimination affect admissibility?
Judgment:
The Court ruled that any confession obtained in violation of constitutional rights is inadmissible.
Since the confession was coerced, it was excluded from evidence, and the accused was acquitted.
Significance:
Reinforced the link between constitutional safeguards and admissibility of confessions.
Reaffirmed that coercion invalidates confessions.
Key Principles from the Cases
Voluntariness is paramount – no threat, inducement, or coercion.
Confession to police alone is not sufficient – requires corroboration.
Retraction of confession reduces evidentiary weight, but does not automatically make it inadmissible.
Confession under coercion or influence of authority is inadmissible.
Constitutional rights against self-incrimination protect individuals from forced confessions.
Judicial scrutiny is mandatory to ensure fairness in accepting confessions.
RELATED Blog
comments