ANALYSIS ON THE TERM POLICE OFFICER IN REFERENCE WITH SECTION 25 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.

reporter Articles, India, Legal

INTRODUCTION

Under section 24 of the Indian evidence act, the word “confession ” arises for the first time. The term “confession” is not defined in the act. Generally, If a person accused of an offense gives rise to a statement against himself, it is called a confession or confessional statement. Confession can be made in many forms like a judicial confession ( before a magistrate or in court in the due course of legal proceedings) and extrajudicial confession ( made by the accused elsewhere than before a magistrate or in court). The query is whether the confession made to an officer who is not an enrolled a police officer under the police act, 1861 but performing under a special statue and having authorities to investigate, he can be treated as a “police officer ” for the purpose of section 25 of the Indian Evidence act, then any confession made to him cannot be proved as against a person accused of an offense.

Section  25 of the Indian evidence act says that –

confession to police officers not to be proved.

“No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offense.”

Reasons for exclusion of confession to police-

Another type of confessions that are under the evidence act regarded as involuntary are those made to personnel. Section 25 expressly discloses that such confessions shall not be proved.

RELEVANCE OF LAWS

In Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1579, Supreme Court came

down upon the police and claimed that it will not approve of any steps to coerce a

confession out of individuals so that police could conclude their investigation in a

hash-hazard

In the case of  Nanoo Sheikh Ahmed v. Emperor(Nanoo Sheikh’). It was held that it is not the name of the police officer, but the fact that he uses the powers of the police officer conferred upon him that specifies whether he is a police officer, thereby holding an excise officer to be a police officer since they enclosed the powers of investigation as an officer-in-charge of a police station.

In the Radha Kishun Marwari v. Emperor, the distinction between ‘a person who is nothing but a police officer and one who is primarily not a police officer by merely invested with the powers of a police officer was discussed. Fazl Ali J. said that bringing the latter within the fold of section 25 would unduly enlarge its scope, and blur the distinction between the police and other officials such as revenue officers. It might lead to judiciary prescribing minimum functions necessary to make a police officer.

After two years the case Amin sheriff v.Emperor (‘sheriff) which was in the Calcutta High court at the different conclusions. It was held that Excise officers are police officers under section 25. The Court appreciated the Fazl Ali’s statement but still went on to recognize two main duties- Prevention of crime and detection of crime- as the vital play of police work. Although Nanoo Sheikh and Shariff conclude at the same judgments, indirect differences exist in their respective approaches.

CONCLUSION

Firstly, two critics are the court ignorant to clear legislative conferrals of authority, and secondly, this has led the Court to place form over substance, building conflict with the accepted basic assumption that a practical approach is essential while applying section 25.

REFERENCE

  1. Nanoo Sheikh Ahmed v. Emperor, AIR 1927 Bom 4.
  2. Radha Kishun Marwari v. Emperor, AIR 1932 Pat 293.
  3. Amin Shariff v. Emperor, AIR 1934 Cal 580.
  4. Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1579
  5. Indiankanoon, Section 25 of Indian evidence act, available at  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/494844/#:~:text=Section%2025%20in%20The%20Indian%20Evidence%20Act%2C%201872&text=25.,person%20accused%20of%20any%20offence. ( last visited, oct.13, 2020)

Submitted by –

Charishma K.S

Student Reporter, INBA