CONFESSIONS

CONFESSIONS
Bhakti Makhija, Jannat Kapoor, Bhavyaa Setia, Ira Singhal, Jai Th

Co-accused confession
Confessions are significant in legal Essential requirements for admitting co-

proceedings, including those of co-accused, accused confessions include joint trial,
as governed by Section 30 of the Indian identical offences, and the confession's
Evidence Act, 1872. Although not explicitly impact on all accused. However, for a joint
defined, confessions entail admissions of trial to be valid, accusations must be genuine,
guilt by the accused. Co-accused refers to not merely a pretext for combining charges.
individuals jointly tried for the same offence, Additionally, a confession from a discharged
with Section 30 allowing the confession of co-accused may be considered, though not as
one accused to be admissible against all. substantive evidence.
•The term "same offence" pertains to identical offences
punishable under the same law. It excludes offences
committed by different individuals in the same
transaction.
•While Section 30 permits the consideration of co-

accused confessions, it does not constitute sole evidence
for conviction. Instead, it corroborates other evidence,
assisting the court in determining its veracity.
Convictions must rely on additional evidence, with co-
accused confessions serving to support the overall case.
Hence, Confessions, including those of co-
accused, are crucial in legal proceedings.
Co-accused confessions are statements
Co-accused confessions, governed by
made by individuals jointly tried for the
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, are
same offence. Section 30 of the Indian
admissible against all individuals tried
Evidence Act allows these confessions to be
jointly for the same offence. However, they
admissible against all co-accused. They are
must meet certain requirements, including
considered alongside other evidence but
joint trial and impact on all accused. Co-
cannot solely serve as grounds for
accused confessions corroborate other
conviction.\
evidence but cannot solely
lead to conviction.
• The Court considered the question as to whether the right to refusing
to give a signature and handwriting sample comes within the right
against self-incrimination u/Art.20(3) and further, whether receipt of
information from accused person in police custody being proven
State of Bombay v. u/S.27 is violative of Art.20(3). The Court answered this by stating
that merely being in police custody does not prove compulsion. It
Kathi Kalu Oghad should be considered in conjunction with other circumstances. Mere
question by the police which leads to any voluntary, incriminatory
statement will not be considered compulsion. Furnishing of evidence
is different from being a witness against oneself u/Art.20(3), which
does not include production of documents such as footprint,
palmprint, handwriting or signature sample. For the prohibition
u/Art.20(3) to apply, the person must be an accused at the time he
made the statement.
Narco
Analysis test
Narco-analysis test involves the intravenous
administration of a drug (such as sodium
pentothal, scopolamine and sodium amytal)
that causes the subject to enter into various
stages of anaesthesia.
It is also known as the truth serum, drug
hypothesis, or narco-interview technique.
In the narcoanalysis test, the individual loses
the capacity to answer according to their will
due to the drugs administered. The test aims
to bring out the truth from the individual
when they are incapable of controlling their
answers voluntarily.
ANY INFORMATION OR MATERIAL OBJECTS THE LEGALITY OF NARCO-ANALYSIS
OBTAINED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THIS TESTS HAS BEEN A SUBJECT OF MUCH
TEST THAT COULD LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY DEBATE. WHILE SUPPORTERS ARGUE IT IS
OF NEW FACTS IS ADMISSIBLE IN COURT A VALUABLE INVESTIGATIVE TOOL,
UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE CRITICS CONTEND IT IS A VIOLATION OF
ACT. HOWEVER, THE COURT HAS THE FINAL AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT AGAINST SELF-
DISCRETION TO EVALUATE THE CREDIBILITY INCRIMINATION PROTECTED UNDER
AND RELIABILITY OF SUCH EVIDENCE. ARTICLE 20(3) OF THE INDIAN
CONSTITUTION.
Selvi v State of Karnataka
(2010)
Appellant’s Contentions
1. Consent Issues: The accused argue their fundamental right against
self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) is violated because they weren't
given a choice before undergoing polygraph, BEAP, or
narcoanalysis tests.
2. Coerced Confessions: The accused claim investigators use the
threat of these tests to pressure them into confessing, leading to
unreliable and involuntary self-incriminating statements.
3. Physical Harm: The accused argue the physical pain caused by
these tests violates the Indian Penal Code's definitions of "injury"
and "hurt.“
Respondent’s Contentions
4. Harmless Techniques: They claim polygraph, BEAP, and
narcoanalysis tests are harmless and aid investigations.
5. Strengthened Evidence: They argue these tests provide stronger
evidence, leading to faster case resolutions through quicker
convictions or acquittals.
6. No Self-Incrimination: They assert that the tests don't violate the
right against self-incrimination because verbal statements made
during the tests aren't presented in court due to their unknown
reliability.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case
of Selvi vs. State of Karnataka that
involuntary administration of narco analysis
tests is a violation of an individual's 'right to
privacy' and 'right against self-incrimination’.
Therefore, unless an individual willingly
consents, the use of such tests is not
permitted. Right against self-incrimination
(Article 20(3)) - compulsory use of these
tests violates this right
Tests can only be done with informed
consent before a judge and with a lawyer
present
Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam
Vs. State of Bihar
1964 AIR 1184, 1964 SCR (6) 623
Haricharan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam, along with The accused appealed to the Patna High Court, which
1 four others, were charged with murdering 4 upheld the conviction of five of the six.
Deokinandan Jaiswal's wife during a dacoity.
Joginder Singh was acquitted, Ram Bachan Ram,
The accused were Ram Bachan Ram, Joginder Ram Surat Choudhury, and Achheylal Choudhury
5
2 Singh, Ram Surat Choudhary, and Achheylal were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Choudhury.
The High Court ruled that the sentence for the two
The Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, found all six appellants should be increased to death, leading to their
3 guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. 6 execution.The appeals have been brought before the
Supreme Court by special leave.

CONFESSIONS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFESSIONS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFESSIONS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONFESSIONS

Bhakti Makhija, Jannat Kapoor, Bhavyaa Setia, Ira Singhal, Jai Th

Confessions are significant in legal Essential requirements for admitting co-

•While Section 30 permits the consideration of co-

You might also like