Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 152

14.14. Indian Evidence Act, 1872.-

The Commission recommends that the exclusionary provisions contained in sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, at present confined to police officers should be extended to all public servants the sections by amended as under:

"25. Confession to public servant not to be proved.-No confession made to a public servant shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

In this section, "public servant" means-

(a) a public servant not being a police officer, who has the power of arresting the person making the confession; and

(b) every police officer, whether he has or has not the power of arresting such person.

26. Confession by accused while in custody of public servant not to be proved against him.-No confession made by any person while he is in custody of a public servant, 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)."

(Para 11.7)

14.15. The Commission recommends that for section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the following section be substituted:-

"27. Discovery of facts at the instance of the accused.-When any relevant fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, whether or not such person is in the custody of a police officer, the fact so discovered may be proved, but not the information whether it amounts to a confession or not."

(Para 11.6)

14.16. The Commission recommends the insertion of a new section in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as under:-

"114B. (1) In a prosecution of a Police Officer for an offence constituted by an act alleged to have caused death or bodily injury to a person, if there is evidence that the death or injury was caused during a period when that person was in the custody of the police, the court may presume that the death or injury was caused by the Police Officer having custody of that person during that period.

(2) The Court in deciding whether or not it should draw a presumption under sub-section (1) shall have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including, in particular, (a) the period of custody, (b) any statement made by the victim as to how the injuries were received, being a statement admissible in evidence, (c) the evidence of any medical practitioner who might have examined the victim, and (d) evidence of any magistrate who might have recorded the victims statement or attempted to record it."

(Para 11.3)

14.17. We recommend that organisation of the police should be restructured so as to keep separate the wings dealing with investigation from the wing dealing with law and order. Further the police should be imparted suitable training in modern techniques of investigation.

(Para 13.6)

Justice K.N. Singh, Chairman.

Prof: D.N. Sandanshiv, Member.

Ch. Prabhakara Rao, Member-secretary.

P.M. Bakshi, Member (Part-time).

M. Marcus, Member (Part-time).

Custodial Crimes Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys