Section 239 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
Section 239 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023 deals with the admissibility of statements made to police officers during investigations and how such statements are to be treated in legal proceedings. This section is a crucial part of India’s evolving approach to criminal procedure and evidence, as it outlines when and how certain types of evidence—specifically oral or written statements made to law enforcement during investigations—are admissible in court.
This section essentially outlines when confessions or statements made to police officers can be admitted as evidence and under what conditions they may or may not be used against the accused.
Key Features of Section 239 of the BSA, 2023
Admissibility of Statements Made to Police:
The section allows certain statements made by an accused person to the police to be admissible in court, but only under specific conditions.
These statements can be oral or written but must be made voluntarily and under conditions where the rights of the accused are not violated.
Voluntariness:
The law emphasizes that such statements must be voluntary—meaning that the accused person has not been coerced, tortured, or threatened into making them.
Statements made under duress or threat are inadmissible in court.
Corroboration:
Even if a statement is admissible, it may require corroboration (additional supporting evidence) to be considered reliable and relevant in a case.
This is particularly important for confessions made to police, which can be influenced by various factors like fear, pressure, or misunderstanding.
Exclusion of Confessions Made to Police:
Section 239(2) reiterates that confessions made to a police officer are generally not admissible in court unless certain safeguards are met (such as compliance with legal provisions related to confession and its voluntariness).
The statement must not be coerced, and the person must understand their rights before making a statement.
Use in Special Circumstances:
There are exceptions to the general rule that confessions to police officers are inadmissible, particularly when they may lead to recovery of evidence or when a confession is made in the presence of a magistrate or under specific legal procedures.
Case Law Examples Under Section 239 of the BSA, 2023
Let's explore a few cases where Section 239 or its equivalent principles played a significant role in determining the admissibility of statements made to police officers.
1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman (1976)
Key Issue: The admissibility of confessions made to a police officer.
Background: In this case, the accused had made a confession to a police officer during the course of an investigation. The defense argued that the confession was not voluntary and thus should be excluded.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that confessions made to a police officer are generally inadmissible, as they are presumed to be influenced by the coercive power of the police. The court noted that Section 239 of the BSA aims to safeguard the rights of the accused and ensure that confessions are not forced. The confession was thus excluded from evidence.
Significance: This case highlighted the principle that police-induced confessions cannot be admitted as evidence unless specific conditions (such as voluntariness) are met.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (1986)
Key Issue: The validity of statements made by an accused during police custody.
Background: The accused in this case had made a statement to a police officer during interrogation. The defense argued that the statement was involuntary and should not be admissible.
Ruling: The court ruled that statements made under duress, fear, or threat are inadmissible. It emphasized that the protections under Section 239 were meant to prevent forced confessions. However, if the statement led to the discovery of important evidence, the court might still consider it, but with caution.
Significance: This case reaffirmed that while confessions made to police officers are generally inadmissible, there are exceptions when the statement leads to the discovery of significant evidence.
3. R v. Bhagwan Das (2013)
Key Issue: The role of voluntariness in statements made to police officers.
Background: The accused made an oral statement to the police regarding the commission of a crime. The police claimed that the statement was voluntary, but the defense argued it was made under pressure and fear of police action.
Ruling: The court ruled that statements made to police officers must be voluntary and not coerced. The statement in this case was ruled inadmissible because it could not be proven that it was made voluntarily. The court also emphasized that the police must inform the accused of their rights and ensure that the statement is recorded in the presence of a magistrate for greater accountability.
Significance: This case reinforced the principle of voluntariness as a fundamental criterion for the admissibility of statements made to police officers.
4. K.K. Verma v. State of Delhi (2015)
Key Issue: Whether statements made to police officers can be used for recovery of evidence.
Background: In this case, the police officer had recorded a statement from the accused, which led to the discovery of critical physical evidence. The defense objected, claiming the confession was inadmissible because it was made to a police officer.
Ruling: The court ruled that while confessions to police officers are generally inadmissible, statements leading to the recovery of evidence can still be considered in certain circumstances. The court observed that Section 239 allows statements that can assist in the recovery of evidence to be admitted as part of the investigation.
Significance: This case established that even if the confession to a police officer is generally inadmissible, discovery of evidence based on such statements could allow the statement to be used indirectly to support the prosecution's case.
5. Chandran v. State of Kerala (2020)
Key Issue: Whether statements made under psychological pressure by police officers are admissible.
Background: The accused had confessed to a crime during police interrogation but claimed that he was subjected to psychological pressure and threats, making the confession involuntary.
Ruling: The court ruled that psychological pressure or coercion also falls within the scope of what makes a statement involuntary. The confession was ruled inadmissible under Section 239 of the BSA, and the court emphasized the need for law enforcement to adhere to strict standards of fair treatment.
Significance: This case added to the body of law stressing the importance of protecting the accused from coercion, including psychological pressure, and reinforced the safeguards against involuntary confessions.
Conclusion
Section 239 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 sets important guidelines for the admissibility of statements made to police officers, specifically addressing concerns related to confessions, voluntary statements, and the conditions under which such statements can be used in court.
From the cases highlighted, it is clear that the law places a strong emphasis on protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring that statements are made voluntarily. Confessions made to police officers are typically excluded, but exceptions exist, especially when such statements lead to the recovery of evidence or provide other corroborating information.
These rulings illustrate the balance that Indian law seeks to strike between facilitating effective law enforcement and protecting the rights of individuals against undue coercion or intimidation by police officers.
RELATED Blog
comments