Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently reiterated a crucial aspect of criminal jurisprudence, emphasizing the inadmissibility of confessional statements made to police officers. This ruling, stemming from the case of Sanju Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, underscores the legal provisions concerning the admissibility of confessional statements in the Indian Evidence Act and their corresponding sections in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
Key Legal Provisions
- Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
– This section categorically states that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. This provision aims to prevent the possibility of coercion and abuse by police authorities during interrogations.
- Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam:
– The corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam echoes the sentiment of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, ensuring that confessions made to police officers are not admissible in court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on Admissibility of Confessional Statements
A vacation bench of Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih addressed an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s judgment, which upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the appellant’s discharge application. The appellant, Sanju Bansal, was booked under Sections 272, 273, and 304 of the IPC and Section 60(A) of the UP Excise Act.
The Supreme Court observed:
“It is obvious that confessional statements recorded by the Police Officers which are part of the charge-sheet cannot remain a part thereof and the same must be ignored. The Trial Court to take note of this.”
The Court’s decision aligns with the established legal framework, reinforcing that any confessional statement recorded by police officers and included in the charge-sheet should be disregarded by the trial courts.
Background of the Case
Sanju Bansal’s case involved the inclusion of confessional statements in the charge-sheet by the investigating officers. Prashant Kumar, Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, filed an affidavit acknowledging that such practice was generally not followed in Uttar Pradesh, and this case was an exception. The DGP assured the Supreme Court that appropriate action would be taken against the responsible investigating officer.
Previous Observations
Last month, the Supreme Court had prima facie found the inclusion of statements made by the accused during the investigation in the charge-sheet to be illegal. The Court had noted that some of these statements appeared to be confessional in nature.
Legal Precedents
- Naeem v. State of Uttar Pradesh:
– This case emphasized the inadmissibility of confessional statements made to police officers, reinforcing the principles laid down in the Indian Evidence Act and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab:
– Although not directly related to confessional statements, this case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal trials to ensure fairness and justice.
Implications of the Ruling
The Supreme Court’s ruling has significant implications for the conduct of criminal investigations and trials:
- Protection of Rights: The ruling protects the rights of the accused by ensuring that confessional statements made under duress or coercion are not used against them in court.
- Investigative Integrity: It reinforces the need for police officers to follow proper procedures during investigations, ensuring that evidence collected is admissible and reliable.
- Judicial Scrutiny: The decision mandates that trial courts must scrutinize the evidence presented in the charge-sheet and disregard any confessional statements made to police officers.
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Confessional Statements
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sanju Bansal v. State of Uttar Pradesh reaffirms the inadmissibility of confessional statements made to police officers, highlighting the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal trials. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the principles enshrined in the Indian Evidence Act and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, ensuring the protection of the rights of the accused and the integrity of the judicial process.
