Confession to Police (Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872):
Under S. 25, no confession made to a police-officer can be proved as against an accused.
Image Source: meggiekornelsen.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Object of Section 25:
The object of this section and S. 26 is to prevent the practice of oppression or torture by the police for the purpose of extracting confessions from accused persons. Linder this section, no confession made to a police-officer is admissible against the accused.
Any incriminating statement made by an accused to a police-officer is inadmissible in evidence. Under the next section, a confession made to a private person in the custody of the police and not made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, is also inadmissible in evidence.
It is to be noted that S. 25 is very broadly worded, and it absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a confession made by him to a police-officer under any circumstances whatsoever. Whether such person is in police custody or not is irrelevant. The idea is that, by rendering such confessions inadmissible, the temptation to exort confessions is taken away.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Police-Officer:
The term “Police-officer” should not be read in a strict technical sense, but must be given its more comprehensive and popular meaning. It applies to every Police-officer, and it is not restricted to officers in a regular police force.
In Raja Ram v. State of Bihar, (A.I.R., 1964 S.C. 828), the Supreme Court held that the words “police-officer” are not to be given a narrow meaning, but have to be construed in a wide and popular sense. However, these words are also not to be construed in so wide a sense as to include a person on whom only some of the powers exercised by the police are conferred.
The test for determining whether such a person is a police-officer would be whether the powers of a police-officer which are conferred on him, or which are exercisable by him because he is deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station, establish a direct or substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by S. 25, that is, recording of a confession.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In other words, the test would be whether the powers are such as would tend to facilitate the obtaining by him of a confession from a suspect or a delinquent. If they do, then it is unnecessary to consider the dominant purpose for which he was appointed or the question as to what other powers he enjoys.
Following the above decision, in Laxman Padma v. State, (A.I.R. 1965 Bom. 195), the Bombay High Court held that the expression “Police-officer” is not confined only to such officers who are appointed under the Indian Police Act, but includes also other officers who exercise the same powers as that of a police-officer of a Police Station in respect of investigation of certain offences.
The confessions recorded by them in exercise of that power of investigation into the offences would be inadmissible in evidence. Thus, a chawkidar, a police patel, a village headman under the Burma Police Act, an abkari officer, and an excise officer are all police-officers.
However, a jailor, or an excise officer, according to the Rangoon and Patna High Courts, and an Assistant Commissioner not acting as a Magistrate but merely as an executive officer, are not police officers. The view of the Patna High Court, has however been overruled by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Raja Ram v. State of Bihar, (A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 828), wherein it was held that an Excise Inspector under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, which authorises him to investigate any offence under the Act, is a police-officer, and a confession recorded by him is inadmissible in evidence.
The Bombay High Court has held that Railway Protection Force Officers are not “police-officers” for the purpose of S. 25 of the Act. Therefore, confessions made to such officers are not hit by S. 25. (Balkishan Devidayal v. State, 71 B.L.R. 295)
The Madras High Court has held that a customs officer is not a Police-officer. (Superintendent of Customs & Excise v. Ft. Sundar, 1993 Cri. L.J. 956). This view has also been taken by the Patna High Court in Banshidhar Maharana v. State of Bihar. (1993 Cri. L.J. 1310)
A confession made to a police-officer in the presence and hearing of a private person is not to be considered as made to the latter and is therefore inadmissible. A letter written by the accused, not in the presence of police-officer, but addressed to such officer, is not a confession made to a police-officer under S. 25. It is, therefore, admissible in evidence.
Emp. v. Haji, [(1921) 23 Bom. L.R. 214]:
An accused was charged with the offence of belonging to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity. During the police enquiry, he had made a statement to an Inspector of Police that a bundle of ammunition produced by him was given to him by two other accused who were charged with him as being members of the gang. It was held that though that statement was self-exculpatory, it was inadmissible in evidence under this section, as it amounted to an admission of an incriminating circumstance.
English Law:
It may be noted that there is no rule of English law corresponding to section 25 of the Act, with the result that, in England, a confession made to a police-officer would be relevant evidence.