Source: Kerala High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the High Court of Kerala in the case of K. Babu v. State of Kerala, held that admission of confessional statements made by accused to the Police, which are hit by bar under Sections 25 and Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) can vitiate a trial.

What was the Background of K. Babu v. State of Kerala?

• On 5^th December 2006, the accused trespassed into the residence of Kumaranunni Nair and Anandavally Amma with the intention of killing them.
• After killing them, he stole two gold bangles, a gun and cash of Rs.550/.
• The Trial Court found the accused guilty of offence under Sections 302, 383, 449, 397, 392, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• In arriving at the said findings, the trial court relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.
• The trial court directed the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years for the offence under Section 449 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years for the offence under Section 397 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years for the offence under Section 201 IPC.
• For the offence under Section 302 of IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term for life and he was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/.
• Thereafter an appeal was filed before the High Court of Kerala to challenge the decision of the Trial Court.
• The accused was acquitted of all charges, and the conviction and sentence passed against him was accordingly set aside by the High Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that admission of confessional statements made by accused to the Police, which are hit by bar under Sections 25 and 26 of the IEA, can vitiate a trial and lead to the acquittal of the accused.
• The Court further held that the breach of a statutory provision that is designed to protect a citizen from self-incrimination and arbitrary deprivation of life and personal liberty must necessarily have serious consequences for the prosecution. Constitutional safeguards cannot be rendered a teasing illusion by the very State that is obliged to uphold them. Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, has to be construed strictly so that statements that are hit by the provisions of Sections 25 and 26, and which have a tendency to influence and prejudice the mind of the court do not find their place on the records of the case.

What are the Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 25, IEA

• This section deals with the confession to the police officer which need not to be proved. It states that no confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

Section 26, IEA

• This section deals with the confession of the accused while in custody of police which need not be proved against him. It states that 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.
• In Kishore Chand v. The State of Himachal Pradesh (1990), the Supreme Court held that the purpose of Section 26 of IEA is to avoid the misuse of authority by the police officer.

Section 302, IPC

• This section deals with punishment for murder. It states that anyone who commits murder can be punished with the death penalty or life imprisonment and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 383, IPC

• This section deals with extortion. It states that, whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.

Section 392, IPC

• This section deals with punishment for robbery. It states that whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

Section 397, IPC

• This section deals with robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. It states that if, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any per­son, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

Section 449, IPC

• This section deals with house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death. It states that whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 201, IPC

• This section deals with the causing of disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender. It states that-
  • Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false,
    
    
  • If a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
    
    
  • If punishable with imprisonment for life—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
    
    
  • If punishable with less than ten years imprisonment—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.