Confessions in Police Custody

CONFESSIONS IN POLICE CUSTODY SECTION 30: Consideration Consideration of of proved proved confession confession affecting affecting person person a!ing a!ing it and ot"ers ot"ers #oint$% #oint$% &nder &nder tria$ for sae offence : “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 consideration such confession confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession” ' confession” '( E)p$anation –“offence ” as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the

offence. ILLUST*+TIONS: ,a- A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C .it is proved that A said : “B and I murdered C”.

he court may consider the effect of the confession a!ainst B . is on his trial for the murder of C. here is evidence to sho" that C "as murdered by b y A and ,.- A is B ,and that B#said: “A and I murdered C”. his statement may not be ta$en into consideration by the court a!ainst A as B is not bein! jointly tried. 1  :  "hen more than one persons are bein! jointly tried for one and the same /eaning /eani ng of coacc& co acc&sed sed  : "hen

offence or offences they are called co#accused. Confession Confe ssion of o f a coacc&sed coacc &sed : Any co#accused is at liberty to confess to his o"n !uilt and his

confession "ill have the full force of evidence a!ainst him But "hen he records a confession implicatin! himself as "ell his other co#accused, that is called the confession of a co#accused.  %o" the &uestion arises: 'hat is its value a!ainst the other non#confessin! co#accused.( )ome cases are !iven by "hich ans"er is concluded: •

State of Tamil Tamil Nadu V Nalini Nali ni ! –some !uidance is to be found "hich provides that such a

confession is relevant a!ainst all the accused persons. *nder sec.+ of the territorist and 1DR.singhAvtar,Indian Evidence Act,1872,universal’s criminal manual,universal law publishing c.pvt.ltd.!ew delhi.,pgn.172 2 Ibid ,pgn.172 " Ibid,pgn.17",AIR 1###,$ri %&."12'().$*

disruptive activities -preventionact +/01, confession of a co#accused has b een !iven the status of  substantive evidence a!ainst other co#accused persons. But the &uality and "ei!ht of an evidence is to be attached as a matter of appreciation of evidence and court may demand such corroboration. •

"ashmirasi "ashm irasingh ngh V State of #adhya $radesh $rad esh % –2acts of the case:#

he 2ood ,(- $ashmira "as "or$in! as an Assistant 2ood 3rocurement Inspector in )tate of 43. he 5fficer of the area found that $ashmira and other inspector "ere !ettin! rice polished "hich is forbidden by the la" of the state. ,1- 6e reported the matter and suspended suspend ed the inspectors and $ashmira services "ere terminated. ,3- hen after 7 mnths a  year old child of the officer "as reported missin!,"hose body "as

recovered from a "ell pac$ed in a ba!.suspicion naturally attached to the removed inspectors and $ashmira ,his brother,his nephe" pirtpal and one,!urbachan "ere brou!ht before the court as those "ho conspired and $illed the child. ,2-!urbachan confessed implicatin! himself and $ashmira to pic$ed up the child and child "as

led by pritpal and then $ashmira $ashmira too$ the child throu!h a ba8ar to a house "here child child "as $illed.  %5',on  %5',on the basis of 9urbachans confession; confession; !urbachan and $ashimra "ere convicted ad sentenced to death . 9urbachan never appealed and e. he investi!ation of that horrible incident "as entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investi!ationGCBIJL)I G)pecial Investi!atin! eamJ . 5% 7 ?*%> +//,)I field a char!e sheet in respect of ofences under AA,I3C .. a!ainst D+ persons, + of them dead..G in blast and + sucide J @ declared abscondin!.hus case "as tried a!ainst 7 ccused persons . +@ are srilan$an. A#+ s.nalini , A# t. suthendraraja ,A#@ sriharan, A#D shan$ar ,A# d.vijayanandan, A#7 sivaruban,A#1 s$ana!asabapathy ,A#0 A.chandrale$ha,A#/ B.robert payas,A+ s.jaya$umar,A++ j.shanthi,A+ ).vijayan, A+@ silvalua )>%I5= C5*%)>H 25= A33>HH>A%) >OC>3GA#+J . 25=  A#+

4=.)*B=A4A%IA4

'>=>

assisted..

and

for

3=5)>C*I5%

4=.Altaf 

Ahmed,learned additional solicitor !eneral ,"ere assisted by proficient advocates and departmental officersE..

his case ar!ued over @ months :then, offences under -B "as appealed by the appeleants ,as accordin! to section @ sub section ,@,D of AA AC .."ould not be applied as bec that apply on the person "ho commit the terriorist act accrdin! to sec @ of  AA AC.

Section 3' P&nis"ent for terrorist acts' # G+J 'hoever "ith intent to overa"e the

9overnment as by la" established or to stri$e terror in people or any section of the  people or to alienate any section of the people or to adversely affect the harmony amon!st different sections of the people does any act or thin! by usin! bombs, dynamite or other  e= 654A)E in his  precise found A+, A,A@,A/,A+,A+7,A+0 !uilty under section +#b read "ith section @ ipc and senteanced :A+,A/,A+,A+7 to HI2> I43=5)%4>%.. A% A,A@,A+0 death ..

NO>?T7E

@UESTION +*ISES T7+T >7ET7E*  T7E CON9ICTION OF T7E +PPELL+NTS O* 

+NY OF T7E/ UNDE*  SECTION  (10A

' >IT7

SECTION   301IPC

PUNIS7/ENT OF DE+T7 SENTENCED C+N AE CONFI*/ED

B'SO

'

+ND >7O/ T7E

ITS I/PO*T+NT TO

FOUND T7+T >7O +CCUSED +*E UILTY OF C*I/IN+L CONSPI*+CY UNDE*  SECTION

(10+

OF  IPC

'' >7IC7

ST+TES T7+T:

(10+' Definition of criina$ conspirac%' # 'hen t"o or more persons a!ree to do, or 

cause to be done,# G+J an ille!al act, or GJ an act "hich is not ille!al by ille!al means, such an a!reement is desi!nated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no a!reement eEEN PE*SONS TO DO ONE O*  OT7E*  OF T7E +CTS DESC*IAED IN SECTION '

IT

/+Y AE

P*O9ED AY T7E DI*ECT E9IDENCE O*  AY CONDUCT OF T7E P+*ITIES ''

SECTION (0 OF T7E INDI+N E9IDENCE +CT: *E+SON+ALE *OUND TO AELIE9E T7+T TOET7E* 

B ,1-

1

S+YS :

, (-

IF T7E*E IS +

O*  /O*E PE*SONS 7+9E CONSPI*ED

IF T7E CONSPI*+CY IS TO CO//IT +N OFFENCE O*  +N

+CTION+ALE >*ON'

IF

T7ESE

1

*E@UI*E/ENTS +*E S+TISFIED

+NYT7IN S+ID ?DONE O*  >*ITTEN AY +NY

(

T7EN

OF SUC7 PE*SONS +FTE*  T7E TI/E

(

>7EN SUC7 INTENTION >+S ENTE*T+INED AY

OF T7E/ ?IN FU*T7E*+NCE OF

T7EI*  CO//ON INTENTION ?IS + *ELE9+NT F+CT ++INST E+C7 OF T7E/ '

TO *+6I9

EST+ALIS7 T7E C7+*ES OF CONSPI*+CY TO CO//IT T7E /U*DE*  OF S7*I

+ND7I ?DEPEND

+CCUSED PE*SONS '

T7E

UPON

CONFESSION+L

ST+TE/ENTS

/+DE

AY

T7E

CONFESSION OF T7E +CCUSED PE*SONS IS *ECO*DED

UNDE*  SECTION   (,(- OF T7E UILTY UNDE*  T+D+

(4

+CT

T+D+ +CT' A UT

T7E +CCUSED >E*E NOT FOUND

SO NO> C+N IT AE POSSIALE T7+T T7ESE CONFESSION+L

ST+TE/ENT C+N T+EN INTO CONSIDE*+TION UNDE*  SECTION   (10A

?

C+TEO*Y

A '' /*'N+T+*+6+N

IN

7IS

SUPPO*T

*ELIED

ON

9S'ST+TE OF +ND7*+ P*+DES7 +I* (884: SECTION

(

C+SE :

AIL+L +7/ED +LOO

T7+T T7ESE CONFESSION UNDE* 

OF T+D+ +CT C+N NOT AE FOUND >IT7 SECTION   (10A IPC '' T7EN

+LT+F +7/ED

TOO  SECTION  (1 OF T7E  T+D+

+CT:

+CCO*DIN TO >7IC7

?/* 

)ection

+G+J authorises the esi!nated Court to try offences under the AA Act alon! "ith another  offence "ith "hich the accused may be char!ed, under the Cr.3.C., at the same trial. he only limitation on the evidence Act come in conflict "ith either recordin! of a confession of a person by a police officer of the

ran$ mentioned therein, in any of the modes specified in the section, or its admissibility at the trial, they "ill have to yield to the provision of )ection +G+J of the AA Act as it is !iven overridin! effect. hus, )ections +7, +7D, 0+ and D7@ of the Code of Criminal 3rocedure "hich have a bearin! on the &uestion of recordin! of statementLconfession of a  person and )ections D to @ of the >vidence Act "hich deal "ith various aspects of  confession of an accused stand evidence Act. )ection @ of the >vidence Act discloses that "hen the follo"in! conditions evidence Act as "ell as )ection + of the AA Act re&uire joint trial of the accused ma$in! confession and co#accused, abettor or conspirator. 6avin! evidence Act to a confession recorded under )ection +G+J of the AA Act, a self#contained scheme is incorporated therein for recordin! confession of an accused and its admissibility in his trial "ith co#accused, abettor or conspirator for offences under the AA Act or the rules made thereunder or any other offence under any other la" "hich can jointly be tried "ith the offence "ith "hich he is char!ed at the same trial. here is thus no room to import the re&uirements of )ection @ of the >vidence Act in )ection + of the AA Act. *nder )ection +G+J of the AA Act the position, in my vie", is much stron!er, for it says, a confession made  by a person before a police officer not lo"er in ran$ than a )uperintendent of 3olice and recorded by such police officer either in "ritin! or on any mechanical device li$e cassettes, tapes or sound trac$s from out of "hich sounds or ima!es can be reproduced, shall be admissible in the trial of such person or coaccused, abettor orconspirator for an offence under this Act or rules made thereunder, 3rovided that the co#accused, abettor or conspirator is char!ed and tried in the same case to!ether "ith the accused. 5n the lan!ua!e of sub#section G+J of )ection +, a confession of an accused is made admissible evidence as a!ainst all those tried jointly "ith him, so it is implicit that the same can be considered a!ainst all those tried to!ether. In this vie" of the matter also, )ection @ of the >vidence Act need not be invo$ed for consideration of confession of an accused a!ainst a co#accused, abettor or conspirator char!ed and tried in the same case alon! "ith the accused. herefore, "ith !reat respect to the learned ?ud!es, I am unable to a!ree "ith the above#&uoted observations made in Kalpnath =ais case GsupraJ and the vie" of brother  homas,?. in his jud!ment in this case. In support of the said vie", homas,?. pointed out, in his  jud!ment, that GiJ a confession can be used as relevant evidence a!ainst its ma$er under and subject to conditions mentioned in )ection + of the >vidence Act; GiiJ there is no provision in the >vidence Act evidence Act "hich says that the Court may ta$e into consideration such confession as a!ainst such other person as "ell as a!ainst the person "ho ma$es such confession. It has to be  presumed that the 3arliament "as a"are of the interpretation placed by the courts includin! 3rivy Council and )upreme Court on )ection @ of the >vidence Act but chose to frame )ection + differently obviously intendin! to avoid the meanin! !iven to the phrase the court may ta$e into consideration such confession as a!ainst such other person.... used in )ection @ of the >vidence Act. 5n the lan!ua!e of )ection +G+J, it is clear that the intention of the 3arliament is to ma$e the confession of an accused substantive evidence both a!ainst the accused as "ell as the co#accused. Brother homas,?. proceeded on the assumption that under unamended )ection +G+J, the confession of an accused as a!ainst a coaccused "as to be treated by the court as substantive evidence. But in vie" of the use of the e