Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 says that Confessions before Police invalid. That is, Law of the Land, the Indian Evidence Act does not accept Confessions made before Police as Evidence to convict an Accused person.
When Police evidence is not accepted by Law courts why Public should be made to believe it as evidence by media? It amounts to subversion of Law on the part of the Government. Where as, nowadays Police stories are sensationalized by Media and thereby people are led to believe that Police stories are true.
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act
No confession made to a [police-officer] shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Section 26 of The Indian Evidence Act
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.
Section 27 of The Indian Evidence Act
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 of The Indian Evidence Act
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 impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant.
Section 29 of The Indian Evidence Act
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.
Also Read my articles on
Section 30 of The Indian Evidence Act
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.] [Inserted by Act 3 of 1891, Section 4.]Illustrations(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.
***
People of the Country are being misled by the media and People are being made Judges emotionally.
Similar story happened in Andhra Pradesh also a few years back. Culprits in a Acid Through case met their end in an ‘Encounter’.
ALSO READ MY ARTICLES ON
- Indian Constitution
- Fundamental Rights
- Basic features of the Constitution
- Article 20
- Right to Life and Liberty
- Magna Carta
- England Bill of Rights
- American Bill of Rights
- French Bill of Rights
Law Courts should take note of what is happening in the country and take necessary action to curb this kind of tendency on the part of the Government. Execution of Justice should not slip from the hands of Judiciary to the Executive ( the Government ) for good. This letter is written in Times of India on the news item’
Delhi rape accused Ram Singh’s postmortem suggests he died due to hanging dt 12.3.13.
One Mr. S Thiruvengadam (Chennai) replies to Janardhan Prasad as follows:
Your comment itself proves your point. Nowadays a crime is discussed and finalised by the Media short of awarding sentence. Thanks for TRP ratings for survival.
Comptroller and Auditor General Mr. Vinod Rai must be hailed for his frank anguish over state of affairs with regard to Political class’ bullying. You know why and how could CAG took courage and become bold enough to criticize the Government and the Establishment. I think that one and only foremost reason for this is that CAG, like Election Commissioner is barred from taking up any Government post after retirement. If High Court and Supreme Court Judges are also barred from ‘POSTS’ after retirement Judiciary also would see miracle Judgments against the Government decisions.
Responses from readers of my letter are as follows:
Agree (2)Disagree (0)Recommend (0)Offensive
This letter above was written by me in response to a news item entitled,”People who have mandate to rule are typical ‘bullies’, CAG Vinod Rai says”, dt 16.5.13 in TOI.
Also Read my articles on
Independence of Judiciary in India is a myth. Take for example, the case of prosecution of Italian Naval Guards who are charged with murder of Indian in Arabian Sea. Government set the course of the Case altered and sub judicially Government declared what punishment they might get. It is true that Judiciary is one of the pillars of Democracy. But Government in practice subverts its Independence by two procedures.
One Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed by the Government from out of Lawyers of SC and High Courts. That is why we can seldom witness any Suit filed by Lawyers of SC and HCs against the Government actions or laws that are brought in by the Government, even though they are unconstitutional or against public policy.
Next, number Two Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts are eligible for Extension of their services and also are made eligible for further postings under Government service after retirement. This provision militates against independence of Judiciary. These two provisions act as bait for Lawyers who aspire for Judges post and Judges who seek further posing after retirement respectively. That is why I say even though technically Judiciary is independent in practice it is not so. Whoever may be in power at New Delhi no Political Party would make Judiciary independent. For it is loss some power for the ruling party.
Responses from readers of my letter are as follows:
Agree (2)Disagree (0)Recommend (1)Offensive
This letter above was written by me in response to a news item entitled,”People who have mandate to rule are typical ‘bullies’, CAG Vinod Rai says”, dt 16.5.13 in TOI.
Also Read
Watch my Videos on YouTube channel
Caged parrot
This letter above was written by me in response to a news item entitled,” Digvijaya Singh takes a dig at judiciary for calling CBI a ‘caged parrot’”, dt. 13.5.13 in TOI.
______________
People who suffer from such illegal acts of the Police seldom complain, lest reprisals from the Police again. Fake encounters and illegal detention, Police harassment are weapons used by some Police personnel to meet nefarious ends. IN fact such act or inaction by the Police is nothing but their transgression into the Judicial system. Judiciary must be firm to curb this kind of transgression from the Police.
- Replies: Agree (7), Disagree (11), Recommend (1), Offensive 0
Ishrat Jahan fake encounter: CBI arrests Gujarat police officer“, dt 21.2.13. CBI arrested G L Singhal in connection with the alleged fake encounter of 19-year-old Ishrat Jahan by a team of Ahmedabad crime branch officers in 2004.
About 85 percent of accused in Criminal cases filed by the Police across the country get acquitted after prolonged trial. In the mean time the accused undergo mental agony, social ostracism, rejection by family and of course jailing as under trial. That means people suffer at the hands of the Police and Judiciary and cannot dare to fight against them legally fearing reprisals. Police and Lower court magistrates have no accountability and escape from punishment after making innocent suffer.
This letter above was written by me in response to a news item entitled, “Left alone, man, woman will go for sex: Judge” in TOI dt. 14.5.13, …..”A man and woman, if left alone, will always go for sexual intercourse.” This is what a Kancheepuram judge said while awarding life imprisonment to a murder accused last year.
