By Bhoomika Verma
PUBLIC POLICY IN CONFESSIONS MADE IN POLICE CUSTODY
Any suspect in a crime has to be looked upon with great suspicion by the police but this must fulfill a prerequisite, in public interest that the accused should be voluntarily met to accept his guilt or wrongful conduct. This is the objectivity with which the confession is required to be taken. Confession is observed as the main technique of proof of guilt of an accused. In crimin al law, Confession is considered to be a very powerful form of evidence, the accomplishment of which is one of the most important aims of police interrogation. The police should perform this function in accordance with tThe law i.e. the statement (confession) should not be the resuit of fear, inducement, violence, or oppression.
HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE LAW OF CONFESSIONS
The Indian Evidence Act was enacted during British Period who came to India with anintention to rule the country. The Police and Army were the major powers of their administration. But irrespective of this fact, they provided the provision of in admissibility
of the confessions made in police custody. Itclearly shows that when they made such law, they had in their mind the Rule of Law. Confession by an accused person has always constituted an exception to the hearsay rule and is therefore, in principle, provable against an accused person. In earlier imes, a confession was treated as aconviction. Physical torture was commonly used to extract confession, and all confessions were characteristically
The expression ‘Confession’ is not defined anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Ordin arily, ‘Confession’ means a statement made by an accused admitting his guilt. Justice Stephen defined confession as ‘an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime’. But the definition suggested by Justice Stephen was modified by the Privy Council, which held that only a direct acknowledgement of guilt should be regarded as a confession.
admitted into evidence without any question. But the status of confession in the legal system has undergone a change from the past few centuries. Inthe present times, there exists a pre- condition of admissibility, that it must be proved that the confession is voluntary. This admissibility is again subject to the Judge’s discretion to exclude it in the interest of faimess to the accused.
PUBLIC POLICY
Section 26 of the Evidence Act excludes confessions to anyone else, while the person making it is in a position to be influenced by a police officer, that is, when heis in the custody of a police officer, unless the free and voluntary nature of the confession is secured by its being made in the immediate presence of the magistrate,
in which case, the confessing person has an opportunity of making a statement uncontrolled by any fear of the police. Even the confession made in the presence of the highest officer of the Police Department who is selected by UPSC, is regarded as unreliable and s therefore in admissible. The reason is, the possibility of them being influenced by the information given by their subordin ate officers. In a department, itis a usual thing that one officer will rely to a greater extent on the information given by another officer of that department, than any other person and especially when that person is accused of committing a crime. But when the confession is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate then it is considered to be admissible as the magistrate is not a part of the police force.
RATIONALE BEHIND THE
INADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS MADE IN
POLICE CUSTODY
The confessions made in police custody are in admissible unless it is shown to be
voluntary, and that itis made in the immediate presence of a magistrate. The reasons behind this rule are: a.) Unreliability:- The confessions made in the police custody is considered to be unreliable, because of the reason that, the accused is presumed to be under the influence of police and it provide opportunities for offering inducement or extorting confession. The custody of the police officer provides easy opportunities
of coercion for extorting confessions. The humane object behind the provision relating to confession under the Evidence Actis to prevent confessions obtained from the accused persons through any undue influence, being received as evidence against them.
b.) To control the behavior of the Police:- The in admissibility of the confessions in police custody is also justified by the need to control the behavior of the police whose duty is to investigate crime. The prime duties of the police are considered to be investigation of crime, minimizing the crime: rates, protecting the interest of the citizens. But this investigation should not be against the procedure prescribed by law i.e. no
violent methods should be adopted for accomplishment of the desired objects (like investigation). Such practices involve not only the danger of false confession, but also ittends to make police and prosecutors less Zzealous in the search for objective evidence. Toavoid any kind of possibility of misuse of power by the police, the statements made in police custody are excluded from being taken as evidence. Another policy behind exclusion of confession made in police custody is that, as the police symbolize the state (state society) it must receive positive reception in public. The police should not be a suspect in the eyes of the public. The provision of exclusion of confession in police custody avoids to an extent, any such possibility of suspicion.
NEED TO MAINTAIN A
BALANCE BETWEEN SOCIETAL INTEREST AND
INDIVIDUAL INTEREST
As stated earlier, one of the major duties of the police is to guard the interest of the
“”Any civilized system of crimin al jurisprudence must accord to the judiciary some means of excluding confessions or admissions obtained by improper methods. This is not only because of the potential unreliability of such statements, but also, and perhaps mainly, because in a civilized society it is vital that persons in custody or charged with offences should not be subjected to ill treatment or improper pressure in order to extract confessions.” Lord Hailsham in Wong Kam-ming v. R
Any statement in the nature of a confession made by an accused while in the custody and control of a police officer should be excluded. The legal burden is on the prosecution, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the confession is voluntary. If the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the confession will be in admissible. In a way, it can be said that this rule of exclusion is an aspect of the privilege against self-incrimin ation.
considered under the Act. For example, the drunken state of a person will not make his confession unreliable. The justification ofthis rule is limited only to the factor of, influence by a police officer (abuse of power by the police); it does not take into account the situations where the statement of an accused may be influenced by other persons, other than the police officer. In other words, all other confessions which are not influenced by a police officer, but by any other person can be considered to be reliable. It can be said that the scope of this rule is very restrictive in nature. It can safely be said that tThe law of confessions under the Evidence Act provide ample safeguards to the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, the practicality is not the same as the theory. The provision providing for the exclusion of confessions made in police custody is not wide-ranging; its scope is limited only to influence by police officer. There is another view that reflects the change, which has abridged the strength of the justification behind the rule of exclusion. As the police hold the primary accountability towards the people of the society, it becomes its utmost duty to puta check onincreasing crime rates, to prevent violence, and protect the rights of the people. This entails the police to use threatening measures, of course to a limited extent, to deal with the crimin al characters. Unless and until such measures are used against the crimin als, a check cannot be put on the growth of crime rates. So a reasonable approach is required to be followed to maintain a balance between the societal interests and individual interests. Also, effective measures should be adopted to save the status of police force from getting tarnished, as it represents the state spirit.
society. It should always be ensured that, the society not endure for the sake of securing the rights of an individual (an accused, who is guilty of crime against the society). There is a strong opinion prevailing
in some quarters that the rule of exclusion has an undesirable effect on social interests and thatin the detection of crime, the State is confronted with overwhelming difficulties as a result of this privilege against self- incrimin ation. The Apex Court s also of the opinion that, iftoo much emphasis is laid on the protection of fundamental rights and human rights, many crimin als may go scot free, crime would go unpunished the society would suffer. It is therefore, very necessary to sustain a balance between the two interests .e. societal interest and individual interest in contemplation to factors like, crime intensification, and various other social variables to meet the ends of justice. The provision providing for exclusion
of the confessions made in police custody has a very narrow extent. It covers only factors like inducement by hope or fear, coercion, etc. to test the reliability of a confession. Various other factors which are also conducive to unreliability, such as, intoxication, confusion or exhaustion are not
– Bhoomika Verma