Category: Confessions

ISSUE:

Whether techniques for gathering evidence, such as collecting DNA, fingerprint, and handwriting samples, are constitutionally acceptable techniques?

What does "witness" mean under Article 20(3), and what is included by its scope?
Does being in police custody automatically imply that the witness was coerced or not?

RULE:

It is not sufficient to claim that an accused person was forced to testify against himself because he gave a statement while being held by the police. In other words, the mere fact that the accused was being held by the police at the time the disputed statement was made would not, by itself, give rise to the legal conclusion that the accused was forced to make the statement.

ISSUE:

Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques violated the ‘right against self-incrimination’ enumerated in Article 20(3) of the Constitution?

Whether the involuntary administration of the impugned techniques was a reasonable restriction on ‘personal liberty’ as understood in the context of Article 21 of the Constitution?

RULE:

Utilizing such neuroscientific investigative methods constituted testimonial compulsion, infringed upon the accused's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as their right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

ISSUE:

Whether a Customs Officer either under the Land Customs Act 1924 (Act XIX of 1924) or under the Sea Customs Act. 1878 (Act VIII of 1878), is a police officer within the meaning of that expression in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act?

RULE:

When someone occupies a position under one of the Acts governing the police, they are a member of the force. The definition of "police officers" under section 25 does not just refer to those employed by police agencies registered under the Police Act of 1861. All individuals who must be enlisted under the Act are stated to fall under the definition of "police." only when customs officials are using restricted authority that is comparable to that of police officers can they be recognized to be police officers.

ISSUE:

Whether the requirements of S. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 render an admission made by the appellant and recorded by the Excise Inspector who was conducting the investigation inadmissible?

RULE:

Section 25 offers a sound defense against police agents torturing suspects to extract confessions. Thus, this section is broadly interpreted and applied to every police officer who has the authority to not only conduct investigations into crimes but also to file reports against offenders and bring them to justice. Any person who has been given the authority of a police officer is included in the term "police officer," which should not be construed in a restrictive manner.