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 or else where, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the power of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).
Simplified Explanation
Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 builds upon the principles established in Section 25, further safeguarding the rights of the accused by addressing confessions made while in police custody. This section states that any confession made by an accused person while in police custody cannot be used as evidence against them unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Explanation:
- Custody of Police:
- “Custody” refers to the situation where the accused is under the control or supervision of the police, whether or not they are formally arrested. This includes being held at a police station or any other location where the police have authority over the person.
- Confession in Police Custody:
- If the accused makes a confession while in police custody, that confession is generally inadmissible in court. The rationale is that confessions made in such circumstances might be coerced, influenced by fear, or given under duress.
- Exception – Confession in the Presence of a Magistrate:
- The only exception to this rule is when the confession is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. A Magistrate is considered an impartial authority, and their presence helps ensure that the confession is made voluntarily and without coercion. If a confession is made in front of a Magistrate, it is admissible as evidence.
- Purpose:
- The purpose of Section 26, like Section 25, is to prevent the possibility of confessions being obtained through force, intimidation, or other improper means by police officers. The presence of a Magistrate is seen as a safeguard against such practices.
Example:
Imagine a situation where A is arrested on suspicion of burglary and is taken into police custody. While in custody, A is interrogated by the police, and during this time, A confesses to the crime.
- Confession in Police Custody: A’s confession is made while A is under the control of the police, which means A is in police custody.
- Inadmissibility: Under Section 26, this confession cannot be used as evidence against A in court because it was made while A was in police custody and not in the presence of a Magistrate. The confession is presumed to be potentially coerced or made under pressure, and therefore, it is inadmissible.
- Exception Scenario: If, however, the police took A before a Magistrate and A voluntarily repeated the confession in the Magistrate’s presence, that confession would be admissible in court. The Magistrate’s presence would ensure that the confession was made voluntarily and without coercion.
Significance:
Section 26 is a crucial provision that protects the rights of accused persons by ensuring that confessions made while in police custody are treated with caution. It recognizes the inherent power dynamics and potential for abuse when a person is in custody and seeks to prevent the use of coerced or involuntary confessions in court. By requiring the presence of a Magistrate for such confessions to be admissible, the section upholds the integrity of the judicial process and helps prevent wrongful convictions based on unreliable confessions.
