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 for 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.
Simplified Explanation
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 addresses the admissibility of confessions in criminal proceedings. Specifically, it deals with situations where a confession is made under circumstances that could make it unreliable, such as when the confession is caused by inducement, threat, or promise. Under this section, such confessions are deemed irrelevant and inadmissible in court.
Explanation:
- Confession:
- A confession is a statement made by an accused person admitting to the commission of a crime. Confessions are generally powerful evidence in criminal proceedings, but for a confession to be admissible, it must be made voluntarily.
- Inducement, Threat, or Promise:
- Inducement: This refers to any encouragement or influence that causes the accused to confess by offering some benefit or reward.
- Threat: This involves any intimidation or coercion that causes the accused to confess out of fear.
- Promise: This is any assurance given to the accused that, if they confess, they will receive some favorable treatment or leniency.
- Person in Authority:
- The inducement, threat, or promise must come from a person in authority, such as a police officer, prosecutor, or any other official involved in the legal process. The idea is that the accused might feel compelled to confess because they believe this person has the power to influence the outcome of the case.
- Effect on the Accused:
- The confession is considered irrelevant if the court believes that the inducement, threat, or promise would give the accused reasonable grounds to believe that by confessing, they would gain an advantage (such as a lighter sentence) or avoid an evil (such as harsher punishment). The focus is on whether the accused’s confession was influenced by these factors, making it involuntary and unreliable.
Example:
Imagine a case where A is accused of theft. During police interrogation, the officer tells A, “If you confess to the theft, I’ll make sure the judge goes easy on you. Otherwise, you could end up in prison for a long time.”
- Inducement and Promise: The officer’s statement is a promise that A will receive leniency if they confess. This is also an inducement because it encourages A to confess by offering a potential benefit (a lighter sentence).
- Person in Authority: The police officer is a person in authority, as they have the power to influence the investigation and potentially affect the outcome of the case.
- Effect on the Accused: A, fearing a long prison sentence, confesses to the theft, believing that this will result in a lighter punishment.
- Inadmissibility of the Confession: In this scenario, A’s confession is not voluntary because it was made under the influence of the officer’s promise. Under Section 24, this confession would be considered irrelevant and inadmissible in court because it was caused by an inducement from a person in authority.
Significance:
Section 24 is crucial because it protects the rights of the accused by ensuring that only voluntary confessions are admissible in court. This section recognizes that confessions made under duress, threats, or promises are likely to be unreliable, as the accused may confess to a crime they did not commit simply to avoid harm or gain a benefit. By excluding such confessions, the law aims to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure that justice is based on reliable and voluntary evidence.
