Introduction:
The powerful changing society neglects to trust in the expressions of mouth, rather they incline toward written, documented proclamations to accept the facts of the equivalent. Accordingly, evidence assumes a vital part in building up the event of occasions that had occurred or which progressively would be occurring. Consequently, to set up the incident or non-occurring of occasions, evidence likewise assumes a vital part in the Court of Law.
The law of evidence is in this way dependent on thinking and logic. Without an appropriate piece of evidence to decide the merit of the case in the Court of the Law, there will be a lot of postponement in preliminary to discover and offer equity to individuals. Along these lines, the general thought of the arrangement of the Indian Evidence Act is to offer the capacity to the legal executive and assist them with choosing the case and give a decision of conviction and vindication relying upon the facts and evidence brought before it. In this way, the Indian Evidence Act is a mode or an instrument through which the court maintained its capacities by arriving at the reality of each case.
Evidence is the “Key” on which a court needs to deliver a choice. Without evidence, there can be no proof. The Law of Evidence is a huge piece of any part of the judicial framework. In India, the enactment of the Indian Evidence Act changed our judicial framework. No arranged laws identifying with evidence existed; which advanced our judicial framework from the arrangement of rules and guidelines for determining the pieces of evidence.
History
In British India, the administration courts by beliefs of the Royal Charter develop in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta were sticking to English principles of the law of evidence. In Mofussil courts, outside the administration towns, there were no reasonable norms relating to the Law of Evidence. The Courts thoroughly enjoyed freed opportunity in the matter of attestation of proof. The entire association of value in the Mofussil courts, with no certain standards concerning the Law of Evidence, was in full-scale disorder.
There was an urgent requirement for the codification of the standards of law. In 1835, the primary undertaking was made to organize the standards of evidence by passing the Act, 1835. Someplace in the scope of 1835 and 1853 around eleven enactments were passed dealing with the Law of Evidence. Regardless, all of these enactments were found lacking.
In the year 1868, a Commission was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Mayne. He introduced the draft, which was subsequently found forbidden to Indian conditions. Later in the year 1870, this assignment of codification of the norms of the Law of Evidence was subject to Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. Stephen introduced his draft and it was implied the select chamber and to High Courts and people from Bar to summon the end, and, in the wake of social event feeling, the draft was put before the overseeing body and it was established. At long last, “The Evidence Act ” came in to constrain on first September 1872.
Before Independence, there were as many as 600 royal states in India, which were not inside the region of the British plan of value. All of these states had their standards of the Law of Evidence. In any case, in light of everything, followed the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. After freedom, there was a merger of princely states into the Indian Union. Both the substantive just as procedural laws have been made reliably applicable to all States, whether or not the British locale or local States. The Law of Evidence is by and by material to all States setting up the Union of India.
Analysis of Sec. 25
[1]It states that “No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offense.”[2]
Section 25 lays down that a confession made by an individual to the police officer is inadmissible and cannot be proved. The basic object of this section and Section 26 is to forestall practices of torture by the police officers for the motivation behind extracting confessions from the accused people. Although the two sections look to achieve the same reason they operate in various fields. Notably, the police officer to get confession utilizes shortcut strategies even by putting the arrested individual into third degree so the arrested individual admits. “The principle upon which the rejection of confession made by an accused to a police officer or while in the custody of such officer (Section 26) is established that a confession accordingly made or obtained is untrustworthy.” These are the reasons for which no confession made to a police officer shall be proved under section 25 as against an individual accused of an offense.
The strategy behind Section 25 is to avoid all confessional statements made by the accused to the police officer under circumstances while he is in the custody of the police besides as is given in Section 27. Section 25 was enacted to end the extortion of confession. It was, therefore, enacted to sub-fill a serious need.
Analysis of Sec. 27
It states that Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offense, 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[3].
There are two special cases laid down in the Evidence Act so far, the admissibility of confession made by an accused is concerned. To begin with, the special case relates to when confession is made by the accused in the immediate presence of a magistrate (Section 26) and the other has been referenced in Section 27 for example at the point when the confession leads to discoveries of facts. The section allows the proof of all kinds of information whether contained in a confession or not and therefore goes beyond the provisions of Sections 25 and 26.
Section 27 lays down that during the time of investigation or during police custody, any information is given by the accused of an offense to the police officer that leads to discovering any fact, may be proved whether such information amounts to a confession or not, and obtained under inducement, threat or promise. Section 27 is by way of a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused.
Under sections 24, 25, and 26 an inadmissible confession would be admissible under section 27 subject to discoveries of facts based on the information given by the accused. Section 27 is by way of the proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which is distinctly related to the fact discovered inadmissible in evidence agreement the accused.
Doctrine of Confession
The word confession is nowhere directly mentioned in the Indian evidence act. However, Section 17 states that any kind of statement whether oral or in written form which puts forward for consideration in any conclusion to the fact in issue or the relevant facts.
In IEA, Sec-24 to 27 deals regarding the confession made to police. Sec. 24 says regarding the admissibility of confession during a criminal proceeding, which results while the torture of police in the custody. Sec 25 bars the confession done to a police officer.
Relationship between Sec. 25 and 27
Courts have universally held that Section 27 operates as an exception for Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. If it should operate as an exception, there is by all accounts no justifiable reason to bar statements made to individuals other than police officers. Regardless of whether it is conceded that Section 27 discards the self-incriminatory part of the statement and just allows the admissibility of that part which related to an ensuing discovery of another fact; the issue lies not with the degree to which such a statement can be made admissible, yet the fact that it allows for the validity of statements made to police officers.
In Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor,[4] it was noted that Section 27 doesn’t necessitate statements being made to police officers and that Section 27 ought to just be viewed as a proviso to Section 25. Therefore, the court envisaged the likelihood that such statements could be made to anybody, including prison mates, visitors, or doctors. Consequently, Section 27 being an exemption for Section 25 and 26 is a misnomer and would be successful if the accused could be shielded from the ‘persuasive forces’ of the police by allowing for statements made to other individuals.
In the case of Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan[5] Dealing with the inquiry relating to admissibility of a confessional statement made by an accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the Court explained the law by stating that Section 25 of the Evidence Act gives that no confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against an individual accused of any offense. Section 26 gives that no confession made by any individual while he is in the custody of a police officer, except if it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such individual. Section 27 is in the form of a provision, it lays down the amount of information got from the accused may be proved.
The bench of H.L. Dattu, CJ, and Arun Mishra, J further explained that for application of section 27 of Evidence Act, an admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which was the immediate cause of the discovery and just that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement, if something new is discovered or recuperated from the accused which was not in the knowledge of the Police before the disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in the evidence.
Consequently, in the current case, where another discovery of fact was made regarding a co-accused by statements made by the accused people under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which led to the nabbing of the co-accused in a case relating to fake cash notes, it was held that such statements which lead to the discovery of facts not in the knowledge of the police, fell under the special case given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Conclusion
Section 25 fills in as important insurance granted to the accused considering the force imbalances between the State and the accused individual. In the absence of such assurance, it may lead to an innocent individual getting sentenced for an offense, which he/she didn’t submit and where influential and influential individuals are concerned. Under Section 25, the provision has become redundant as a similar situation has been accommodated in Section 26 of the Act.
Section 27 serves as a special case for Section 25, it is important to discuss whether Section 27 was meant to be the exemption for the ‘Bright Line Rule’ under Section 25.
Going by the development of Section 27 and the judicial decisions, it is presented that Section 27 fills in as a proviso and as a special case for Section 26 of the Act in particular. Further, the application of the Section in Aghnoo Nagesia’s[6] case is mistaken as the accused was not in police custody when he admitted to the police, accordingly not satisfying the pre-requisites of Section 27 of the Act. While the judgment elaborated that all incriminating facts including rationale and preparation would form a part of confession and consequently be barred by Section 25 to be proved.
References:
[1] As to statements made to a police officer investigating a case, see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 162.
[2] Sec. 25/ Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[3] Sec. 27/ Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[4]As cited in Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor (1939) 41 BOMLR 428
[5] Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan, 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1043
[6] As cited in Aghnoo Nagesia v State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 134
0 Comments