Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act

Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act: Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding

Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) deals with the admissibility of confessions made by an accused person. A confession is generally considered to be a reliable form of evidence, as it is an admission of guilt made by the accused person themselves. However, Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act provides that a confession will be inadmissible if it was made as a result of any inducement, threat, or promise. This is because a confession obtained through such means is likely to be unreliable, as the accused person may have been coerced into making it.

Key elements of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act

1. Inducement, threat, or promise: The inducement, threat, or promise must be of a temporal nature, meaning that it must relate to the accused person’s current or future situation. For example, a promise to leniency or a threat of punishment would be considered temporal inducements, while a promise of eternal salvation or a threat of eternal damnation would not.

2. Person in authority: The inducement, threat, or promise must come from a person in authority. This means that the person must be in a position of power or influence over the accused person. For example, a police officer, a magistrate, or a jailor would all be considered persons in authority.

3. Reasonable grounds: The inducement, threat, or promise must be sufficient to give the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by making the confession, they will gain an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature. This means that the accused person must have genuinely believed that making the confession would be in their best interests.

Exceptions to Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act

There are a few exceptions to Section 24. For example, a confession made by an accused person to a religious adviser will be admissible, even if it was made as a result of a promise of spiritual benefit. Additionally, a confession made by an accused person in a state of delirium or drunkenness will also be admissible, if the court is satisfied that the accused person was not coerced into making it.

Importance of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act

Section 24 is an important safeguard against the use of coerced confessions in criminal proceedings. It ensures that the only confessions that are admitted into evidence are those that have been made freely and voluntarily. This is essential for the protection of the accused person’s right to a fair trial.

Case law on Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act

There are a number of important Supreme Court cases that have dealt with Section 24. These cases have helped to clarify the meaning of the section and to establish the principles that are to be applied in determining whether a confession is admissible.

Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act is a complex and important provision of the Indian Evidence Act. It is essential for lawyers and judges to have a thorough understanding of the section in order to apply it correctly in criminal proceedings.

Here are some important Supreme Court cases that have dealt with Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act:

• Nandlal Singh v. State of Punjab (1982): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a confession made by an accused person to a police officer after being offered a cup of tea and a cigarette was inadmissible under Section 24. The Court held that the offer of tea and cigarettes was an inducement that was sufficient to give the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by making the confession, he would gain an advantage.

• Selvam v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a confession made by an accused person to a police officer after being threatened with arrest was inadmissible under Section 24. The Court held that the threat of arrest was a threat that was sufficient to give the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by making the confession, he would avoid an evil of a temporal nature.

• Ram Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar (2000): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a confession made by an accused person to a police officer after being promised leniency was inadmissible under Section 24. The Court held that the promise of leniency was a promise that was sufficient to give the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by making the confession, he would gain an advantage.

• Abdul Khan v. State of Kerala (2009): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a confession made by an accused person to a magistrate after being told that he would be dealt with leniently if he cooperated was admissible under Section 24. The Court held that the magistrate’s statement was not a promise of leniency, but rather a statement of his intention to exercise his discretion in a fair and just manner.

• Amit Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2010): In this case, the Supreme Court held that a confession made by an accused person to a police officer after being threatened with false implication was inadmissible under Section 24. The Court held that the threat of false implication was a threat that was sufficient to give the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by making the confession, he would avoid an evil of a temporal nature.

These cases provide valuable guidance on the interpretation and application of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act. They highlight the importance of ensuring that confessions are made freely and voluntarily, and that they are not obtained through coercion or deception.