Section 24: Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding
Section 164 of CrPC
A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.
Section 25: Confession to police officer not to be proved
No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Section 26: Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him
No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
Explanation. In this section "Magistrate" does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George 18 [***] or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882)
Section 27: How much of information received from accused may be proved
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 thereby discovered, may be proved.
Section 28: Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise relevant
If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant.
Section 29: Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.
If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.
Section 30: Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same 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 such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.
Explanation."Offence", as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit the offence.
(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said"B and I murdered C". The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said"A and I murdered C".
This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being jointly tried.
Section 24 – confessionary statements made by an accused person allegedly out of inducement / threat / or promise, cannot be given in evidence, in the existence of following conditions – (a) the court having regard to the nature of charge levelled against the accused; (b) the inducement / threat / promise is emanating from a person in authority; (c) such inducement / threat / promise is sufficient to influence the accused person to really believe the existence of said inducement / threat / promise; (d) that by making due confession the accused would gain advantage or would avoid any evil of a temporal nature, in reference to the proceeding against him.
Section 25 – confessionary statements made to police officers, cannot be given in evidence, and it is of no consequence even if the accused may have confessed of having committed the offence,
Section 26 – confessionary statements made to police officers, whilst in their custody, cannot be given in evidence, except where such statements were made in the immediate presence of the Magistrate.
Section 27 – evidence can be given of such facts, which were discovered pursuant to information received from the accused person, whilst in the custody of the Police.
Section 28 – lays down a proviso to the principle laid down in section 24 of the Act, wherein confessionary statements as stated in section 24 may be relevant , wherein the court is of the opinion that the alleged inducement / threat / promise was not in existence when the confessionary statements were made.
Section 29 – confessionary statements, which are otherwise relevant and lawful, would not be rendered unlawful merely because (and it is of no defense for the accused to say that) – (a) the said confessionary statements were made under a promise of secrecy; (b) where the confessionary statements were extracted in consequence of a deception practiced upon the accused person; (c) where the confessionary statements were made when the accused was drunk; (d) where the confessionary statements were made in answer to questions, which accused need not have answered; (e) where the accused contends that he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confessionary statements, and that , accused was not told that evidence of his such confessionary statements might be given against him in the court of law.
Section 30 – inheres a principle wherein the existence of valid and lawful confession made by an accused person, for himself and for some other accused persons in the same trial, the trial court may take into consideration such confessionary statements as against such other accused persons.
Mahabir Singh Vs State of Haryana 2001 7 SCC 148
V Singhara Singh and Ors AIR 1964 SC 358
Section 164(1) CrPC
Jogendra Nahak & ors vs State of Orissa AIR1999SC2565
Section 164(2) of CrPC
Antappan Vs St of Kerala
2009 6 SCALE 36
JUDICIAL AND EXTRA - JUDICIAL CONFESSION
Ajay Singh v St of Maharashtra AIR 2007 SC 2188
Babubhai Udesinh Parmar V State of
AIR 2007 SC 420 Gujarat
Bishnu Prasad Sinha & Anr vs St of Assam AIR 2007 SC 848
Francis Stanly @ Stalin v NCB Thiruvananthapuram AIR 2007 SC 794
Raj Kumar Karwal Versus
AIR 1991 SC 45 India
Karam Payaswami Tewari V St
of Maharashtra 2009 1 SCALE 717
Sivakumar vs St of Inspector of Police AIR2006SC653