Evidentiary Value of statements obtained by Police under the Indian Evidence Act

 The evidentiary value of statements made to police officers in India is primarily governed by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, particularly Sections 25, 26, and 27. These sections delineate the circumstances under which statements can be considered admissible in court and the extent to which they can be relied upon.

Section 25: Confessions to Police Officers

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act explicitly states that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused. This provision is rooted in the historical context of potential coercion and abuse of power by law enforcement, ensuring that confessions obtained under duress or in custody are inadmissible. 

This section underscores a fundamental principle of criminal justice: protecting individuals from self-incrimination and ensuring that any confession is made voluntarily and without undue influence.

Section 26: Confessions Made in Police Custody

Section 26 extends this protection by stating that confessions made while in police custody are also inadmissible unless recorded before a magistrate. This provision aims to safeguard against coercive practices that might occur when an accused is under police control.

Section 27: Exception for Discovery of Facts

Section 27 provides a crucial exception to the preceding sections. It allows for the admissibility of statements made by an accused if those statements lead to the discovery of a fact. The rationale behind this provision is that if a statement results in the discovery of evidence, it lends credibility to the statement itself, even if it was made in police custody.

However, for a statement to be admissible under Section 27, it must meet specific criteria:

- The fact disclosed must be newly discovered and not already known to the police.

- The connection between the statement and the discovery must be clear and direct.

Recent judicial interpretations emphasize that if the fact was already known to law enforcement prior to the disclosure, then such statements would not hold evidentiary value under Section 27. For instance, in a recent Supreme Court ruling, it was held that if a disclosure merely reiterates information already known to police, it lacks relevance and cannot be admitted as evidence.

Judicial Interpretation and Limitations

The courts have consistently stressed that while statements leading to discoveries can be admissible, they should not be viewed as conclusive evidence on their own. They serve as supplementary evidence that must be corroborated by other reliable sources. For example, in cases where recoveries based solely on disclosure statements were contested, courts have ruled that such statements alone do not suffice for conviction without additional supporting evidence.

Moreover, the distinction between admissibility and credibility is crucial. While a statement may be admissible under Section 27, its credibility as reliable evidence can still be challenged based on other available evidence or inconsistencies within testimonies.

Conclusion

In summary, the evidentiary value of statements obtained by police in India is intricately tied to Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. While confessions made to police officers are generally inadmissible to protect against coercion, Section 27 allows for certain disclosures leading to discoveries to be admitted as evidence. However, these disclosures must be scrutinized carefully for their relevance and credibility within the broader context of available evidence.

Print Page