Bar Council and Judicial Service Written Exam Preparation - Part 1

Evidence Act 1872 Important Questions and Answers 

An accused person, while in police custody, made a confession to a magistrate. Later, he wanted to retract the confession in court. What will be the admissibility of this confession?

B has been arrested on the charge of murdering A. B confesses to the police that he killed A and hid the weapon in a certain place. The police raid the place and recover the weapon. How will this confession of B and the recovery of the weapon be relevant in court?

Discussion

When a defendant in police custody makes a confession to a magistrate, which they later retract in court, the admissibility of that confession is a complex legal issue governed by the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. This act, while not in effect in Bangladesh, has very similar provisions to the Evidence Act of 1872 of Bangladesh, so the principles discussed here are generally applicable. Let's break down the admissibility of such a confession and the relevance of an associated discovery under relevant sections.

Defendant in police custody makes a confession to a magistrate, 

Admissibility of a Retracted Confession (Sections 24, 25, 26, 27)

A confession made by an accused person while in police custody is not, on its own, generally admissible. However, there are exceptions. Here's how the different sections of the law apply:

 Section 24: This section states that a confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if it appears to have been caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority, and the court believes this would give the accused grounds to think they could gain a temporal advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature. Essentially, if a confession is not voluntary, it can't be used.

 Section 25: This is a crucial section. It provides a blanket rule that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offense. This rule exists to prevent police from using coercive methods to extract confessions.

 Section 26: This section extends the principle of Section 25. It states that 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 such a person. Therefore, a confession made to a magistrate, even while the accused is in police custody, is an exception to the general rule. The presence of a magistrate is seen as a safeguard against police coercion, ensuring the confession is more likely to be voluntary.

So, when an accused person makes a confession to a magistrate while in police custody, that confession is admissible in court because it falls under the exception provided in Section 26.

However, the fact that the confession is admissible doesn't mean it's irrefutable. When the accused person later retracts their confession in court, the court must still decide on the weight and credibility of the confession. The court will consider all circumstances, including the reason for the retraction, whether there was any undue influence, and whether the confession was indeed voluntary. A retracted confession can still be the basis for a conviction, but it's generally considered unwise to convict solely on a retracted confession without independent corroboration. The corroboration must be strong and independent, confirming the truth of the confession's contents.

Relevancy of a Confession Leading to Discovery

This section provides a highly significant exception to the general rules of Sections 25 and 26.

 Section 27: This section deals with discovery from information received from an accused person in police custody. It states that when any fact is discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offense, in the custody of a police officer, so much of that information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Let's apply this to the case described:

 Accused X confesses to the police that they killed Y and hid the murder weapon in a specific location.

 The police, acting on this information, go to that location and discover the weapon.

In this scenario, under Section 27, the part of X's statement that led directly to the discovery of the weapon is admissible in court. The admissible part is not the entire confession ("I killed Y"), but the specific information that connects the accused to the discovered fact. For example, the statement, "I hid the murder weapon at this specific location," is relevant and can be used as evidence.

The logic behind this section is that the discovery of the physical evidence (the weapon) provides a strong guarantee that the information given by the accused is true. It removes the potential for a forced or false confession. The information leading to the discovery is relevant because it proves the accused's knowledge of a fact directly related to the crime, which is highly probative. Therefore, both the confession (as it relates to the discovery) and the subsequent recovery of the weapon are relevant and admissible in court.