Section 25, 26 & 27 of Indian Evidence Act

Section 25 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
25. Confession to police officer not to be proved.—No confession made to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.—No confession made to a police officer1, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence."

section 26 of Indian evidence act
No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
Explanation:
In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).
Comments:

Principle:

Section 26 is the extension of the principle laid down in Section 25. While Section 25 applies to all confessions made to some police officers, this section includes confession made to “any person” other than police officer, while in police custody. Under this section, it is provided that no confession made by an accused to any person while in custody of a police officer shall be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Thus, the section is intended to prevent of coercive method of extorting confession.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The section is based upon the same logic that the police in order to secure confession uses all types of coercive methods, because the accused is put in constant fear and forced to confess. “The reason is that a person in the custody of police is presumed to be under their influence and it provides opportunities for offering inducement or extorting confession, but the presence of a Magistrate is a safe guard and guarantees the confession.”

Police custody:

Police custody simply means police control implying restrictions and restrain imposed by police officer. It commences from the time when one’s right to movement is restricted by the police officer. It includes both physical control or temporary restriction imposed on a person. An accused is under police control means he is to stay under direct or indirect police surveillance.
Thus a woman was left under the custody of a village chowkidar or when she was left to Tonga-driver by the police; both are regarded to be police custody. In the second case confession by the accused to Tonga-driver was held to be irrelevant. Therefore, the custody of a police officer for the purpose of the Section 26 is not merely physical restriction, but it includes any kind of police surveillance. To constitute custody of police, some sort of custody is sufficient under section 26. “The crucial test is whether the accused is a free man when he makes the confession or his movements are controlled by the police either by themselves or by some other agency employed by them.

Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Law as regards Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can be summarised as follows:
(i)    Information given by an accused person to a police officer leading to the discovery of a fact which may or may not prove incriminatory has been made admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(ii)   Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a confessional statement made to a police officer or while an accused is in police custody, can be proved against him, if the same leads to discovery of an unknown fact.
(iii)  The rationale of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is that police may procure a confession by coercion or threat. The exception postulated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact. The relevance under the exception postulated by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is limited “…as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered…”
(iv)  The rationale behind Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is that facts in question would have remained unknown but for the disclosure of the same by the accused. The discovery of facts itself, therefore, substantiates the truth of the confessional statement. And since it is truth that a court must endeavour to search, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been incorporated as an exception to the mandate contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

[avishekchatterjee]

Your video are very helpful .. your explain very easy to learn

[yogendrapaswan]

Nice explanation this topics.. thank you sir

[bhuliporwalllb]

Exaplinetion superb and solied thank you very much sir jii

[advocategauravsinghtomar]

Very nice your teaching way is perfect 🙏🙏🙏

[alishaazad]

section 27 exception hai 25 and 26 ka ye kaunse case me dia hai ?