This article is written by Parvathy Prasannan, a final year B. Com LLB student of School of Legal Studies, CUSAT during her internship at LeDroit India.
Keywords
Admissibility, Confession, Evidence Act, legal system.
Abstract
The Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, forms the bedrock of the legal framework that governs the admissibility of evidence in Indian courts. It lays down the rules and principles that guide the admission and exclusion of evidence during legal proceedings. Among the many aspects of evidence that the Act addresses, the concepts of admissibility and confession are of paramount importance in criminal trials.
The admissibility of evidence is a cornerstone of the legal system in many countries, and it plays a pivotal role in ensuring that justice is served. In criminal law, understanding the nuances of admissibility, particularly in the context of confessions, is essential. The Evidence Act, a fundamental component of the legal system, outlines the rules and principles governing the admissibility of evidence. This article will delve into the crucial differences between admissibility and confession as they pertain to the Evidence Act.
Admissibility of Evidence
Admissibility refers to the legal acceptability of evidence in a court of law. In essence, it is the process by which evidence is allowed or excluded from being presented before a judge or jury during legal proceedings. The rules governing admissibility are often designed to ensure that only relevant and reliable evidence is considered, thus upholding the principles of fairness and justice.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down various provisions that dictate the admissibility of evidence in different situations.
Relevance (Section 5): Under Section 5 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence is considered relevant if it is connected with the facts in issue or is relevant to a fact in issue. The Act defines what constitutes relevant facts (Sections 6-55) and irrelevant facts (Sections 56-58).
Admissions (Section 17): Section 17 of the Act deals with admissions. An admission can be defined as a statement made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent or a person interested in the outcome of the case, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. Admissions are generally admissible evidence under the Act.
Confession (Section 24): On the other hand, Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act sets the stage for confessions. It explicitly states that a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in criminal proceedings if it appears to have been caused by inducement, threat, or promise. This provision reflects the intent of the law to ensure that confessions are given voluntarily and not obtained through coercion or undue influence.
Distinction between Admissibility and Confession
Admissibility, in the context of the Indian Evidence Act, refers to the legal acceptance or allowance of evidence in a court of law. It establishes the criteria that evidence must meet in order to be considered by the court during the trial. The Act outlines various rules and provisions that govern the admissibility of evidence, ensuring that only relevant and reliable information is presented before the court. Admissible evidence is crucial in building a case, as it forms the basis upon which judges and juries make informed decisions about the guilt or innocence of the accused.
One of the fundamental principles of admissibility is the concept of relevance, as elucidated in Sections 5 to 55 of the Indian Evidence Act. Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant to the facts in issue in the case. In other words, evidence must have a logical connection to the facts being considered by the court. For instance, in a murder trial, evidence related to the victim’s cause of death would be relevant, while evidence about the accused’s financial status may not be, unless it directly relates to a motive.
However, even if evidence is relevant, it may still be excluded if it falls under certain exceptions or is subject to exclusionary rules, as outlined in Sections 56 to 167 of the Act. These exceptions include privileged communications (such as lawyer-client privilege), hearsay evidence (statements made by someone who is not a witness in court), and evidence obtained illegally or in violation of a person’s rights. The Indian Evidence Act strives to ensure that evidence presented in court is fair, reliable, and consistent with principles of justice.
In contrast to admissibility, a confession is a specific type of statement made by an accused person in which they admit to committing the alleged crime. A confession is a powerful piece of evidence because it is considered an admission against one’s own interest and is often seen as highly reliable. However, confessions must meet certain criteria to be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Confessions are addressed in Sections 24 to 30 of the Act. Section 24 establishes that a confession made to a police officer is generally inadmissible in court. This rule is provided to prevent the possibility of coercion, torture, or undue influence by law enforcement officers while obtaining confessions. To be admissible, a confession must be voluntary and given without any undue influence, threat, or promise of benefit. Section 25 of the Act further specifies that any confession made to a person in authority (other than a police officer) cannot be considered as evidence.
Moreover, Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 introduces the concept of a “confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise,” stating that such confessions are inadmissible. If an accused person is promised a reward or threatened with harm to induce a confession, it cannot be used as evidence. This provision is crucial to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system and ensure that confessions are made freely and truthfully.
Furthermore, Section 27 of the Act provides an exception to the general rule on confessions. It stipulates that if a person makes a confession that leads to the discovery of a material fact, such as the location of a murder weapon, that confession is admissible in court. This exception is based on the principle that such confessions are likely to be true because the accused would not have known about the material fact unless they were involved in the crime.
In summary, while admissibility and confession are intertwined concepts within the Indian Evidence Act, they have distinct roles and implications in the legal process. Admissibility pertains to the rules and criteria governing the acceptance of evidence in court, ensuring that only relevant and reliable information is considered. Confession, on the other hand, is a specific type of statement in which an accused person admits to committing a crime, subject to strict criteria to prevent coercion or inducement. Understanding the nuances of admissibility and confession is essential for a fair and just criminal justice system in India.
Case laws
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960 AIR 1125): This case highlights the distinction between admissibility and confession. The accused, in this case, made a statement to the police, which was sought to be used against him as a confession. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the statement was not a voluntary confession but a statement to the police, and therefore, it could not be treated as a confession under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. This case underscores the importance of establishing the voluntariness of a statement for it to be considered a confession.
Raja Ram v. State of Bihar (1964 AIR 828): In this case, the accused’s extra-judicial confession was sought to be admitted as evidence. The Supreme Court held that while extra-judicial confessions are admissible, the court should closely examine the circumstances under which such confessions are made to determine their voluntariness. The case emphasized that even a confession can be excluded if it is not voluntarily made.
Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1994 SCR (1) 559): In this case, the accused made a statement to the police, which was sought to be used against him as a confession. The Supreme Court held that the statement was not a confession but an admission and was admissible in evidence. This case illustrates the distinction between admissions and confessions and the different criteria for their admissibility.
Conclusion
In the Indian criminal justice system, admissibility and confession are two different but interconnected concepts that play a crucial role in the determination of guilt or innocence. While admissible evidence encompasses a broad spectrum of facts and statements relevant to a case, confessions specifically pertain to self-incriminating statements made by the accused.
The Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, provides clear guidelines regarding the admissibility of evidence, emphasizing the importance of relevance and voluntariness. Section 24 of the Act serves as a safeguard against coerced confessions, ensuring that only voluntary and trustworthy confessions are considered in criminal trials.
Through a discussion of relevant case laws, we have demonstrated the practical application of these concepts in Indian jurisprudence. These cases underscore the necessity of upholding the principles of voluntariness and fairness in the admission of evidence, particularly in cases involving confessions.
In conclusion, a thorough understanding of the distinction between admissibility and confession is essential for legal practitioners, judges, and anyone involved in the criminal justice system. It is through the careful application of these principles that justice is served, ensuring that the guilty are held accountable while protecting the rights of the accused. The Indian Evidence Act stands as a testament to the enduring commitment to these principles in Indian law.
Reference
