Section 26: Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him

Section 26: Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him

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 persons.

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 the Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).

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 confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact that thereby discovered, may be proved.

COMMENTS

This section seems to be based upon the view that if a fact is actually 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. But where the facts are such as indicating reasonable doubt as regards the guilt of the accused benefit of the same must be availed by him – Jawaharlal Das v. State of Orissa.

Person though not formally arrested but is under the control of the police for purpose of interrogation is in “custody” without arrest – Hirenkumar v. State of Gujarat.

Section 28: Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise, relevant

If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the court, been fully removed, it is relevant.

Section 29: Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.

If such a Confession is otherwise relevant, it does not to become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confessions, and that evidence of it might be given against him.

admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *