Section 23 Admissibility of Confessions to Police Officers of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, aims to prevent any confession obtained through coercion or undue influence from being admitted in court. Admissibility of Confessions to Police Officers have always been a subject of judicial scrutiny due to the potential for misuse of authority by law enforcement. These provisions are essential in protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring the fairness of criminal proceedings in India and to uphold the integrity of the justice system, the BSA clearly describes the conditions under which confessions can be used as evidence.
Provisions: Admissibility of Confessions to Police Officers under Section 23 of the BSA
The admissibility of confessions made to police officers in criminal proceedings is addressed in Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. The relevant portions of the section state:
23. (1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
(2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him:
Explanation for Section 23 of the BSA
A confession made to a police officer to be admissible, two key circumstances must be met:
- The confession cannot be made directly to a police officer. This means that any statement given to a police officer that could be interpreted as a confession is inadmissible as evidence against the accused.
- If the confession is made while the accused is in police custody, it must be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. This ensures judicial oversight and reduces the possibility of coercion or undue influence during the confession.
The rationale behind these restrictions is to safeguard the rights of the accused and prevent potential abuse of power by law enforcement agencies. Confessions made under duress or coercion are inherently unreliable and could lead to wrongful convictions. By making confessions to police officers inadmissible, the Act aims to protect the accused’s right to a fair trial and ensure that only voluntary and trustworthy evidence is considered in criminal proceedings.
Exceptions to Section 23 General Rule: Discovery of Facts (Proviso to Section 23(2))
a proviso to Section 23(2) that allows for the admission of certain information obtained from an accused person in police custody:
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 discovered, may be proved.
This means that if information provided by an accused person in police custody leads to the discovery of a fact relevant to the case, that portion of the information directly related to the discovery is admissible, even if it forms part of a broader confession. This exception recognises the potential value of information leading to the discovery of evidence while maintaining safeguards against the admissibility of coerced confessions.
Joint Trials and Confessions (Section 53 of the BSA)
Section 53 of the BSA addresses the admissibility of confessions made by one accused person that implicate other individuals jointly tried for the same offence:
53. When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.
This allows the court to consider such confessions against all implicated individuals, ensuring that relevant information is available for evaluation during a joint trial.
READ MORE : Sections 61, 62, and 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam(BSA): Admissibility of electronic records
BNS Section 118 Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons
Important Supreme Court and High Court Cases on the Admissibility of Confessions
- Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966): In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that confessions made to a police officer, or while in police custody, are inadmissible unless made in the presence of a Magistrate. This landmark ruling laid the foundation for the strict interpretation of confession admissibility in Indian law.
- State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde (2000): The Supreme Court reiterated that information leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 23(2) of BSA), even if it forms part of a larger confession.
- Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994): The court upheld the constitutional validity of provisions restricting the admissibility of confessions, emphasizing the need to protect individuals from coercion by law enforcement.
- Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): The Supreme Court held that the use of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping without consent is unconstitutional. This judgment highlights the court’s emphasis on the voluntariness of confessions and the need to prevent the misuse of police power.
In summary, the BSA sets strict conditions for the admissibility of confessions made to police officers, prioritising the protection of the accused’s rights and the reliability of evidence used in criminal proceedings. While confessions made directly to police officers are generally inadmissible, exceptions exist for information leading to the discovery of relevant facts and confessions made during joint trials that implicate co-accused individuals.
FAQs
- Are confessions made to police officers admissible in court?
No, under Section 23(1) of the BSA, confessions made directly to police officers are inadmissible in court.
- Can a confession made in police custody be admitted?
Yes, but only if it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, as per Section 23(2).
- What is the exception to the rule on confessions?
Information leading to the discovery of a fact relevant to the case can be admitted under the proviso to Section 23(2), even if it forms part of a broader confession.
- What happens in joint trials involving confessions?
Under Section 53, confessions made by one accused person that implicate others can be considered against all the accused in a joint trial.
- What is the significance of judicial oversight in confessions?
Judicial oversight ensures that the confession is made voluntarily and without coercion, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused.
6. Evidentiary value of confession made to a police officer?
A confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in court under Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This is to prevent the use of potentially coerced confessions. However, an exception exists under the proviso to Section 23(2), where information leading to the discovery of a fact, obtained from the accused in custody, is admissible.
7. Is police evidence admissible in court?
While police evidence like witness statements and physical evidence is admissible, confessions made directly to a police officer are not unless they lead to the discovery of material facts.
8. Is confession to police admissible?
No, confessions made to police officers are generally inadmissible unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Disclaimer
The content of this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While efforts are made to ensure accuracy, laws may change, and the information may not be current. Consult a qualified legal professional for advice specific to your situation. Legallyin.com and its contributors are not liable for any actions taken based on this article.
READ MORE : Digital Arrest: A latest cyber crime in India