Question Hub asked by user week 42

Showing judgments where confession recorded by forest officials hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act ?

First of all you have good interpretation of Confession and police officer, The expression confession has not been defined in the Indian Evidence Act but Stephen in his book “Digest of the law of Evidence defines as A confession is an admission made at any time a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the interference that he committed to crime

Under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, “No confession made to police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

The objective of this section is to prevent the practice of torture by police officer for the purpose of extracting confession from accused person, under this section no confession made to police officer is admissible against the accused

But the question is Who is police officer , the term police officer used in section 25 of Indian Evidence Act should be ready as strict technical sense but according to its more comprehensive and poplar meaning. It applies to every police officer and is not restricted to officers in a regular police force.

Who are considered as police officers?
  1. Exercise Officer (Emperor vs Nanoo 1926 28 Bom LR 1196
  2. A special officer of the Commercial Tax Department 
  3. An officer appointed under Bombay Sales Tax Act 
  4. Security officer of HEC 
  5. Officer under Orissa Home Guard Act 1961 (State of Orissa vs Dubuga Tubud 1989) 
  6. Police officer Guarding Treasury 
  7. Police patel (Empress vs Rama Birapa 1878 3 Bombay 12 
  8. Village Administrative officer(Lu Bein vs Queen Impress 1889 26 CAL 569
  9. Officer of J.K Rifles 

Who are not considered as police officers?
  1. IPS Officer working on an administrative post and not authorized or empowered to conduct investigation
  2. Officer of railway Protection Force or under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act 1966 
  3. Member of the defence party under Assam Village defence Organization Act, 1966 
  4. Central Reserve Officer or Central Reserve Police force 
  5. Constable of Rajasthan Armed Constabulary 
  6. Sub-Divisional Officer 
  7. Officer of the security Force 
  8. Officers of Custom 
  9. Inspector of Mines 
  10. Prohibition officer 
  11. A jailor
  12. Forest officer 
  13. Officer under Narcotic Drugs Act 
  14. Enforcement officer investigating the officer under section 5(1)(aa) of the foreign Exchange Regulation Act 
  15. Village of Kotwal, Village Chowkidar, Gram Rakshi 
Matia Patel v State of Orissa, 2001 Cr LJ 1897 (Ori).
A forest officer under an Orissa legislation has been held to be not a police officer though certain powers of police officers have been conferred on him. A confession made to such an officer was held to be admissible in evidence

What are the question to the IO regarding section 380 and 457 and leading to discovery under Sec 27 of Evidence Act?

See section 27 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with How much of information received from accused may be proved , for this there some provision given in section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. 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.

The fact said to have been discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence must be of a kind which such information really helps to bring to light and which it would be difficult to find out otherwise before it can be treated as of any substantial probative value.

The fact must be the consequence, and the information the cause of its discovery. The information and the fact should be connected with each other as cause and effect. The fact discovered must be in consequence of the information received from the accused, and the fact should not have been already within the prior knowledge of the police. The information should be free from any element of compulsion. If any portion of the information does not satisfy this test, it should be excluded.

Only those statements of the accused are admissible, which cannot be traced easily or cannot be recovered easily without statement of accused.

Suppose he has hidden stolen articles in a mud, or having dug under the ground, such type statement given to police will be admissible

Your questions were related to 380 of IPC which is related to theft. Theft in a building ten or vessel etc which is used as a human dwelling or a place for stocking things, is considered an aggravated form of theft because it involves trespass, further if it is dwelling place, it intimidates and causes fear to people living in the house. If it is used for the custody of property even then it is considered an aggravated form and a higher punishment is prescribed because it is intended as to give greater security

A person who assault in attempting wrong confinement will be punished under section Section 357 of Indian panel Code,

Means, A person who attacks or use criminal force to attempt wrongful confinements such person shall be punished under section 357 of Indian Panel Code whose punishment is imprisonment upto 1 Year or fine or both . Fine will not be greater 1000 Rs

There is no any provision given in Indian law, what type of question an IO can ask, Investigating Officer ask any question related to offence in any way, no court has power to intervene in his investigation

Whether section 90 Indian Evidence Act was declared unconstitutional by any courts in India ?

Not yet, It is constitutional, Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with Presumption in respect of 30 years' old document coming from proper custody relates to the signature, execution and attestation of a document i.e. to its genuineness but it does not give rise to presumption of correctness of every statement contained in it. That the contents of the document are true or it had been acted upon, have to be proved like any other fact

When a document is or purports to be more than 30 years old, if it be produced from what the court considers to be proper custody, it may be presumed (a) that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and (b) that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to be executed and attested

Thirty-year-old document, produced from proper custody, not looking ex facie suspicious, presumption could be drawn in favour of the document. Where the document relied on was not more than 30 years old, finding of the court based on no evidence could be interfered with.

It is not necessary that the signatures of the attesting witnesses or of the scribe be proved, for if everything was proved there would be no need to presume anything.

There can, however, be no presumption as to who the person who executed the document was and what authority he had to execute the document and whether he had the requisite authority,521 or whether the contents of the document are true or that the document has the legal effect that it purports to have.

Comments