Confession Otherwise Relevant Not to Become Irrelevant Because of Promise of Secrecy, etc.
Section 29 of Indian Evidence Act (IEA) addresses the admissibility of confessions made under certain circumstances that might otherwise render them inadmissible. It essentially states that if a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under certain conditions, such as a promise of secrecy, deception, intoxication, or in response to questions that the accused was not bound to answer.
Key Aspects of Section 29 of Indian Evidence Act
-
Confession Otherwise Relevant: The confession must be relevant to the case at hand. This means that it must have a bearing on the facts or circumstances of the crime.
-
Irrelevance Due to Certain Conditions: The confession would otherwise be considered irrelevant due to the circumstances in which it was made, such as under a promise of secrecy, deception, or intoxication.
-
Admissibility Despite Invalidating Conditions: Despite these conditions, the confession remains admissible if it is otherwise relevant. This means that the court will consider the confession’s content and relevance, regardless of the surrounding circumstances.
Purpose and Significance of Section 29 of Indian Evidence Act
Section 29 plays a crucial role in ensuring that relevant confessions are not excluded solely based on the manner in which they were obtained. It recognizes that truthful confessions can be obtained under various conditions and that excluding them based on technicalities could hinder the pursuit of justice.
Limitations of Section 29 of Indian Evidence Act
While Section 29 allows for the admissibility of confessions under certain conditions, it does not imply that any confession obtained under these circumstances is automatically admissible. Courts still have the discretion to assess the voluntariness of the confession and consider the surrounding circumstances.
Case Law on Section 29 of Indian Evidence Act
1. King-Emperor v. Dinanath Ram (1942)
In this landmark case, the Privy Council laid down the principles for determining the admissibility of confessions under Section 29. The court held that even if Section 29 applies, the prosecution must still prove that the confession was made voluntarily. The court stated that “The question whether a confession is or is not admissible under Section 29 depends, not upon whether an inducement was held out, but upon whether the confession was in fact obtained by means of it.”
2. State of Bihar v. Ram Bahadur Rai (1958)
The Supreme Court of India reiterated the principle that the confession must be made freely and voluntarily, without any lingering influence from the earlier inducement. The court emphasized that “The question is whether, in spite of the lapse of time, the confession was in fact made voluntarily, that is, without any lingering effect of the inducement.”
3. State of Punjab v. Phula Singh (1961)
In this case, the Supreme Court further clarified that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession to determine whether it was made voluntarily. The court stated that “The test is not whether the inducement was successful, but whether it had a lingering effect on the mind of the accused at the time of the confession.”
4. State of U.P. v. Deoman (1968)
The Supreme Court elaborated on the concept of a 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. The court stated that “The question is whether, in spite of the lapse of time, the impression caused by inducement was, in the opinion of the court, fully removed.”
5. State of Kerala v. Rajan (1982)
In this case, the Kerala High Court emphasized the importance of carefully examining the circumstances surrounding the confession. The court stated that “The court must consider all the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the confession was freely and voluntarily made.” The court also highlighted the need to consider the time gap between the inducement and the confession, the conduct of the accused, and the presence of any independent corroboration.
These cases provide valuable insights into the interpretation and application of Section 29 of Indian Evidence Act. They highlight the importance of judicial discretion and careful scrutiny in determining the admissibility of confessions under this section. Courts must ensure that confessions are made freely and voluntarily to protect the rights of the accused while also upholding the pursuit of justice.