| introduction | jurisprudence for sections |
| sections | section 24,25,26,27 Indian Evidence Act |
| relevant case laws | Veera Ibrahim vs St. of Maharastra Aghnoo Nagesia vs St. of Bihar Pulukuri Kottaya vs Emperor Bodhraj vs st. of J&K |
| present problem | question related |
| conclusion | decision as per our reasoning |
Statement is genus, Admission is species of statement and confession is species of admission.
A confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceedings to establish the commission of an offence by him.
Confession is admission of guilt. Confession is when- accused states he committed crime, makes statement which he does not admits guilt but an inference can be drawn, that he might have committed the crime.
Confession may be of 2 types:
- Judicial – the statement made only to judicial magistrate.It is a good piece of evidence.
- Extra Judicial – the statement made to any person other than magistrate.It is a weak type of evidence.
Essentials;
-Confession should be clear and unequivocal
-It can be oral or written
-It should be made voluntarily
-conversation to oneself if overheard by other is also a confession.
when confession is irrelevant:
- section 24 confession caused by inducement, threat or promise
- section 25 confession made to police
- section 26 confession made to police in police custody
Section 24:
Section
24 describes the grounds under which a confession is irrelevant –
a) If it is obtained by any (i) inducement, (ii) threat, (iii) promise;
b) Such inducement etc. must have reference to the charge;
c) Such inducement, etc. must proceed from a person in authority;
d) Such inducement etc. must be sufficient to give the accused grounds for
supposing that by making it he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of a
temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him (Section 24)
section 25:
No confession made to a police-officer shall be proved as against a person accused
of any offence.
section 26:
No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer,
unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as
against such person.
Explanation: In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village
discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere,
unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1881).
section 27:
HOW MUCH OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ACCUSED MAY BE PROVED:
Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
Relevant Case Laws:
Veera Ibrahim vs State of Maharastra
facts:
Abdul Umrao Rauf and Veera Ibrahim were prosecuted for attempt to supply of contraband goods by truck. These goods were loaded in the truck from the seaside, in the presence of the appellant, and thereafter the first accused took the wheel, while the appellant sat by his side in the truck.
A truck met with an accident and both the driver and the person next to him were taken to police station but the police didn’t file a case but directly informed to custom authorities.
Then custom officer checked goods and found them illegal and it was seized by them.
The appellant, the person next to driver , was questioned by custom officer and claimed to be unaware of illegal goods and denied giving any instructions to driver.
The appellant said he was just a passenger and didn’t know about the driver’s illegal activities.
issue:
Whether Sec.24 IEA apply to statement recorded in this case.
judgement:
Veera Ibrahim claimed to be an innocent traveler in the truck when he said: “I did not ask Mullaji (driver) what goods were being loaded in his lorry … Mullaji was only my friend and I was not aware of any of his mala fide activities”.
Appellant argued that his statement was obtained under pressure because he was threatened with prosecution for perjury if he didn’t tell the truth..
Court rejected this argument and said in sec. 24 these following things must me there-
-statement in question is a confession
-that confession made by accused person
-to be made to person in authority
-confession has been obtained by any inducement, threat or promise
-must have reference to the charge against accused.
Court examined the statement and find that it was not a confession because there was lack of knowledge about contraband goods.
Custom officer was person in authority , so there was no evidence of Inducement, threat or promise .
Court said that custom officer didn’t threat the accused, so Sec.24 will not apply here.
Court held that statement was not barred u/s 24 IEA and it was considered admissible as an admission of incriminating facts u/s 21 IEA.
The circumstances strongly indicated the accused’s involvement in an attempt to evade duty on the contraband goods.
Appeal was dismissed and accused’s involvement was confirmed.
Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar
facts:
There was a quarrel between the accused (Aghnoo) and his aunt, Ratni, related to property which she gave to her daughter and son-in-law. The accused claimed that the property belongs to him, so he planned the murder of these 4 people (aunt, her daughter and son-in-law, their son). Then the accused surrendered himself to the police officer and filed an FIR in which he stated that he murdered them, where he hid the dead bodies, and which weapon was used to kill them (tangi). The trial court convicted him under Section 302 of IPC, but the High Court accepted the death reference, confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. This case is now appealed before the SC on special leave.
issue:
Whether the entire portion of confession to police officer is admissible u/s 25 IEA.
Whether confession be treated as exception u/s 27 IEA
judgement:
SC claimed that under section 25 of the law, no confession made to a police officer is admissible as evidence against the accused; instead, it should be made before a magistrate. It was stated that when a confession is deemed inadmissible, the entire portion of it should be considered void. The Supreme Court held that the discovery of facts (such as dead bodies and weapons) mentioned in an FIR alone is not sufficient to prove guilt. In the absence of other independent evidence to prove the accused guilty and with no direct eyewitnesses, only the prosecution witness who claimed to have seen the accused coming out of the forest was present. Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24, 25, and 26. The entirety of a confession should be viewed as a whole, not in parts.
Aghnoo was acquitted because there was no independent evidence showing he was guilty. The confession was the only proof of guilt, but Section 25 states that a confession made to the police is not admissible as evidence against the accused.
Pulluri Kottaya vs Emperor
facts:
In this case there was murder caused by nine accused. This case is related to murder and rioting. They were prosecuted and convicted by Court of Session, Guntur and decision of lower court was upheld by Madras High Court.
During the Sessions trial, when witness No. 2, who was the principal prosecution witness was examined, he said that he had not been supplied with copies of statements recorded by the sub-inspector and requested the Court to make those statements available to enable him to cross-examine the important prosecution witnesses with reference to the earliest statements.There was a breach of the proviso of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The learn session judge directed the public prosecutor to comply with the request by counsel.In the opinion of the session judge all the 6 eyewitnesses were hostile to the accused and the story told by them was substantially true. Thus, the session court convicted the accused.
Madras High Court said that whole confession was admissible otherwise there would be no connection. Admission of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was challenged to Privy Council. They argued that statement of some of them had been admitted in violation of Section 26 and Section 27.
issue:
Whether confession made before police while in custody revealing the discovery of a weapon admissible as evidence against the accused?
judgement;
Section 27 provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by Section 25 & 26 and enables certain statements made by a person in Police custody to be proved.
If a fact is discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true, and accordingly, can be safely allowed to be given in evidence.
The information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
Normally the Section is brought into operation when a person in Police custody produces from some place of concealment some object, such as a dead body, a weapon, or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused.
Whole confession / statement is not relevant. Only that part of the confession or statement is relevant which is distinctly related to discovery of facts. In this case Privy Council said that only that part of statement or confession can be proved in consequence of which fact has been discovered and other part shall be excluded.
Confession 1 (By one of the accused) – “I stabbed Sivayya with a spear. I hid the spear in
a yard in my village. I will show you the place”
Confession 2 (By another accused) – “About 14 days ago, I Kotayya and people of my
party lay in wait for Sivayya and others at about sunset time at the corner of Pulipad tank.
We, all beat Boddupati China Sivayya and Subayya, to death. The remaining persons,
Pullayya, Kotayya and Narayana ran away. Dondapati Ramayya who was in our party
received blows on his hands. He had a spear in his hands. He gave it to me then. I hid it
and my stick in the rick of Venkatanarasu in the village. I will show if you come. We did
all this at the instigation of Pulukuri Kotayya.
Only this part is admissible “I hid it and my stick in the rick of Venkatanarasu in the
village. I will show if you come.”
Privy Council said that only some part of confessions were admissible and remaining part
was inadmissible. The Court observed that High Court was wrong. After observation
regarding admissibility of evidence under Section 27, matter was sent back High Court to
decide.
Appellant while making the statement does not clarify that they have killed the persons using their spear and sticks. That’s why their evidence is not admitted and therefore cannot be the sole ground for the conviction of the accused.
Bodhraj vs State of Bihar
facts;
Deceased , Swaran Singh, was running a finance company and there are two accused in his company, Ashok Kumar and Ravinder Kumar, took the loan and suggested deceased to enter into financial arrangement.
All the 3 parties went to look at a site for flour mill purpose and some people came later on and attecked on the deceased.
Ashok issued a cheque in bank and Ravinder had revolver of deceased as his license was seized.
2 of them made statement to prosecution witness that they killed the party as he was demanding money from them.
These statement were made before police, in recovering weapons, the other accused has been identified by prosecution witness. The accused Bodhraj was identified by prosecution witness.
Trial court acquitted Bodhraj but convicted by High court.
issue;
Whether the discovery of weapons was found by information provided by accused can be treated as evidence t prove his guilt.
judgement;
Court refer Padala Veera vs State of AP that this case is based upon circumstantial evidence and certain test should be followed:
circumstances from which the facts derived and inferences drawn should be firmly established.
Circumstance should prove the guilt of accused not his innocence.
Chain of evidence should be formed to prove the guilt.
Court held that only confession was there and weapons founded which are not sufficient to prove him guilty.
Court observed that establishing the facts that deceased was last seen with accused would be difficult , and in cases where there is large number of people who may be in between accused and the deceased , it may be even more difficult.
In absence of any further piece of evidence, the court held that accused was last seen with deceased and it was difficult to prove conviction.
Court held that to admit certain evidence the circumstances should be basis for the conviction of accused and proving circumstances are in consistent with facts lies upon prosecution and has to prove chain is complete (sharad birdhichand vs state of maharastra).
Court held that last seen doctrine not always be concluded that accused is guilty of the offence.
information provided by accused in police custody regarding place he has concealed the articles cannot be regarded as information under section 27.
Court found him not guilty.
Present Problems:
In a case involving robbery and murder, X one of the accused person, told: “I am wearing the pant which I washed after the commission is crime” while other accused Y said: “I can show you the place where the looked property has been kept. “The property was recovered at his instance. Discuss relevancy and the extent of admissibility of such statements made by X and Y while in police custody.
Answer: X’s statement is not admissible as it does not relate with any crime. Y’s statement will be admissible under section 27, discovery of facts, but only this part which can discover facts.
A was tried to murder of B whose dead body was recovered from a well. B was wearing certain ornaments which were not found on his dead body. A made following statements to the police: (i) I killed B, removed ornaments from body and pushed B into the well. (ii) The ornaments are pledged with X. I can take you there. On the basis of above statements the police recovered ornaments from X. Whether the statements made by A are relevant as confession or not? Give reasons.
Answer:Statement made by A, (i) will not be admissible as it was made to police under section 25. (ii) It will be admissible under section 27, discovery of facts.
Purohit, an accused of rape, while in police remand felt pain in his chest. He was admitted in a hospital, where a police constable was kept on the gate to keep a watch on him. Purohit confessed his guilt to another patient Kulwant who was also in the same room. The statement was overheard by policeman also. Prosecution wants to make this statement of A as “confession”. Discuss.
Answer: His statement will not be admissible as it was made to police under section 26 as he was in police remand. The statement is overheard by police constable on duty and it was made voluntarily.
