Confession
The provisions of sections 164, 342 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code and articles 37 to 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 deals with confession. Section 164 deals with the recording of confession at any stage before the commencing of an enquiry or trial. Section 342 deals with the examination of accused persons during the course of the enquiry or trial. Section 364 prescribes the manner in which the examination of an accused person is to be recorded.
Confession is not defined in Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 or even in Indian Evidence Act 1872. In a landmark case Aghnoo Nagesia versus State of Bihar , the honorable judge observed that for a long time, the Courts in India adopted the definition of confession given in Art. 22 of Stephen's …show more content…
The articles of Qanun e Shahdat protects the voluntariness of confession. According to article 37 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 confession caused by inducement, threat or promise is inadmissible because that by making it the accused would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. Therefore, threat or promise will affect the voluntariness and unfairness so inadmissible in evidence. Similarly, article 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 says that confession made to a police officer has no value as it also effects on voluntariness and unfairness of confession. Thus, article 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 says that confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer is also inadmissible as it also effects the voluntariness and unfairness of confession. Therefore article, 41 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 says that confession can only be admissible if impression caused by inducement, threat or promise completely removed.
Professor Wigmore in his book stated that in history, Lord Mansfield in Rudd's Case in 1775 expressed first judicial understanding that limited the admissibility of confession. He gave his views on confession under assurance of pardon. He stated that the confessions made under threats or promises use against persons who made them on their trial. However, in 1783, in …show more content…
Appellant A was on the driver seat while appellant M was sitting adjacent to him on the front seat whereas Magistrate discharged rest of three co-accused who were students. The car was searched and from beneath of the seats of the car, 17 bags of charas were recovered. The weight of the charas was 18,500/- grams. Further, the samples of charas were sent for laboratory test.
The appellant M made his confession to the judicial magistrate. The confession of M is exculpatory in nature. In his confession, he admitted that the car in question was belonging to him, which appellant A was driving. M further said that A suddenly change the route and he was told that this route was a short cut and when they were stopped by the police, A appellant made an attempt to flee away but was caught. He has further stated that the charas was recovered from beneath the driver seat.
The honorable judge observed that the last portion of the confession made by M was exculpatory in nature. In addition, Court cannot rely upon confession of M because huge quantity of charas weighing 18500 grams was recovered. Moreover, three important witnesses had given evidence against the appellants. Thus, the appeal was
The provisions of sections 164, 342 and 364 of the Criminal Procedure Code and articles 37 to 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 deals with confession. Section 164 deals with the recording of confession at any stage before the commencing of an enquiry or trial. Section 342 deals with the examination of accused persons during the course of the enquiry or trial. Section 364 prescribes the manner in which the examination of an accused person is to be recorded.
Confession is not defined in Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 or even in Indian Evidence Act 1872. In a landmark case Aghnoo Nagesia versus State of Bihar , the honorable judge observed that for a long time, the Courts in India adopted the definition of confession given in Art. 22 of Stephen's …show more content…
The articles of Qanun e Shahdat protects the voluntariness of confession. According to article 37 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 confession caused by inducement, threat or promise is inadmissible because that by making it the accused would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him. Therefore, threat or promise will affect the voluntariness and unfairness so inadmissible in evidence. Similarly, article 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 says that confession made to a police officer has no value as it also effects on voluntariness and unfairness of confession. Thus, article 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 says that confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer is also inadmissible as it also effects the voluntariness and unfairness of confession. Therefore article, 41 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 says that confession can only be admissible if impression caused by inducement, threat or promise completely removed.
Professor Wigmore in his book stated that in history, Lord Mansfield in Rudd's Case in 1775 expressed first judicial understanding that limited the admissibility of confession. He gave his views on confession under assurance of pardon. He stated that the confessions made under threats or promises use against persons who made them on their trial. However, in 1783, in …show more content…
Appellant A was on the driver seat while appellant M was sitting adjacent to him on the front seat whereas Magistrate discharged rest of three co-accused who were students. The car was searched and from beneath of the seats of the car, 17 bags of charas were recovered. The weight of the charas was 18,500/- grams. Further, the samples of charas were sent for laboratory test.
The appellant M made his confession to the judicial magistrate. The confession of M is exculpatory in nature. In his confession, he admitted that the car in question was belonging to him, which appellant A was driving. M further said that A suddenly change the route and he was told that this route was a short cut and when they were stopped by the police, A appellant made an attempt to flee away but was caught. He has further stated that the charas was recovered from beneath the driver seat.
The honorable judge observed that the last portion of the confession made by M was exculpatory in nature. In addition, Court cannot rely upon confession of M because huge quantity of charas weighing 18500 grams was recovered. Moreover, three important witnesses had given evidence against the appellants. Thus, the appeal was