Section 25: Confession to police-officer not to be proved

Now in the BSA

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

Leading cases

• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020)By majority, officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and a statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confession at trial.
• Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008)Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, which place a reverse burden on the accused, are not unconstitutional, but the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts strictly; as recovery was not proved, the conviction was set aside.
• Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2008)An officer acting under Section 67 read with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not a police officer, so a voluntary statement made to him can be used as a confession against its maker and alone sustain a conviction.
• Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India (1990)Officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence invested with police station officer powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not 'police officers' under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so confessions made to them are not barred.

Questions on this section

6 questions in 19 of our papers cite Section 25. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. Under Section 23(1) of the BSA, a confession made to a police officer:

   A.shall not be proved as against a person accused of any offenceB.can be proved against the accused if it was reduced to writing and signed by himC.can be proved if it was made in the presence of two independent witnessesD.can be proved if the police officer is of the rank of Superintendent of Police or above
   Show answer

2. 2. In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119), the accused himself lodged a first information report at the police station which contained a full confession of the murders. The Supreme Court held that:

   A.the whole report was excluded, save his identity as maker and the parts within Section 27 of the Evidence ActB.the report was admissible in full as an admission, as a first information report is a public recordC.the report could be split, and the parts disclosing motive and opportunity could be used against himD.the report was admissible in full, since he was not in police custody at the time he lodged it
   Show answer