Section 28 of Indian Evidence Act deals with the admissibility of confessions made after the removal of inducement, threat, or promise. It provides an exception to the general rule under Section 24, which prohibits the admission of confessions made by an accused person under inducement, threat, or promise.
Key Provisions of Section 28 of Indian Evidence Act
-
Confession after removal of inducement, threat, or promise: The confession must be made after the impression caused by any inducement, threat, or promise has, in the opinion of the court, been fully removed.
-
Relevant confession: If the court is satisfied that the confession was made voluntarily and without any influence, it is considered relevant and admissible in evidence.
-
Burden of proof: The burden of proving that the confession was made voluntarily and after the removal of any inducement, threat, or promise lies on the prosecution.
Factors to Consider for Admissibility
When determining whether a confession falls under Section 28 of Indian Evidence Act, courts consider various factors, including:
-
Time between the inducement and the confession: A longer time interval between the inducement and the confession may suggest that the impression caused by the inducement has diminished.
-
Conduct of the accused: The court may consider the accused’s behavior and demeanor to assess whether they were under any undue influence or coercion.
-
Circumstances of the confession: The court will examine the surrounding circumstances in which the confession was made to determine the presence of any external pressure or influence.
Judicial Interpretations of Section 28 of Indian Evidence Act
Indian courts have provided valuable guidance on the interpretation and application of Section 28 of Indian Evidence Act in various cases. Some important principles established through judicial interpretation include:
-
The mere passage of time may not be sufficient to remove the impression caused by inducement.
-
The confession must be made freely and voluntarily, without any lingering influence from the earlier inducement.
-
The court must exercise caution and critically evaluate the circumstances surrounding the confession.
Section 28 of Indian Evidence Act plays a crucial role in ensuring that confessions are made voluntarily and are not obtained through coercion or improper means. It strikes a balance between the need for truth and the protection of the accused’s rights, ensuring that confessions are not admitted unfairly while also allowing for the pursuit of justice.
Here are some important case laws related to Section 28 of Indian Evidence Act:
1. King-Emperor v. Dinanath Ram (1942): In this case, the Privy Council held that the prosecution must prove that the confession was made freely and voluntarily after the removal of any inducement, threat, or promise. The court emphasized that mere lapse of time is not conclusive evidence of the removal of the impression caused by inducement.
2. State of Bihar v. Ram Bahadur Rai (1958): The Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution has the burden of proving that the confession was made voluntarily after the removal of any inducement. The court also clarified that the test of admissibility is not whether the inducement was successful but whether it had a lingering effect on the accused at the time of the confession.
3. State of Punjab v. Phula Singh (1961): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession to determine whether it was made voluntarily. The court emphasized that a confession cannot be admitted if there is any doubt about the accused’s willingness or freedom from undue influence.
4. State of U.P. v. Deoman (1968): The Supreme Court further elaborated on the concept of voluntary confession, stating that the accused must be free from any external pressure or apprehension at the time of making the confession. The court also clarified that the confession must be made without any lingering influence from an earlier inducement.
5. State of Kerala v. Rajan (1982): In this case, the Kerala High Court held that the court must critically examine the circumstances surrounding the confession, particularly the time gap between the inducement and the confession, the conduct of the accused, and the presence of any independent corroboration.
These cases highlight the importance of careful scrutiny and judicial discretion in determining the admissibility of confessions under Section 28 of Indian Evidence Act. Courts must ensure that confessions are made freely and voluntarily, without any coercion or undue influence, to protect the rights of the accused while also upholding the pursuit of justice.