How do Police Interrogation Work ? Police interrogation was part of a police investigation. When a defendant is brought under police custody either in offense cognizable or non-cognizable offense, the police have the right to question the accused. This helps the police to know about the essential facts and truth of the incident so that the case can be resolved easily. 

Rights during police interrogations

  • According to Article 161 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the defendant advised not to make statements or answer any questions that may prove that the defendant is guilty of the offense.
  • The police are not entitled to force the defendants to make sentences that can later be used as part of the evidence against the accused.
  • Article 24 of the Indian Evidence Act and section 316 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states that the police can not threaten or coerce the defendant to accept the crime that he/she has been accused.
  • According to Article 330 and Article 331 of the Indian Penal Code, if the accused police injured during police interrogation the police responsible for the punishment under the law.
  • A police officer has no right to torture, treat, or abuse the accused during a Police interrogation or questioning round.
  • If a defendant has a complaint regarding the Police interrogation, then he/she can register a complaint with the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) or other higher officials such as the Inspector General of Police (IG), or Deputy Inspector General of Police (D.I.G.).
  • The defendant also has the right to file a complaint with the judge in the court having jurisdiction.
  • Complaints can be sent to the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) by registered post. If S.P. satisfied with the material of the complaint, he/she must investigate the case himself/herself or may order the investigation to be made.
  • Complaints about the police interrogation were also registered by the State Human Rights Commission, or the Commission as law enforcement is not carried out by the police or done by the police in a corrupt manner.

The task for the Police Interrogation

  • It is the duty of the defendant to provide correct and accurate information or provide the best information known to him/her.
  • As per section 162 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, It is not necessary to sign a statement given by the accused during the Police interrogation process.
  • Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act states that any statement to the police by the defendant can not be held against him/her until the statement was made before the judge.
  • If the defendant wishes to acknowledge the offense he/she has committed, then it should be made confession before the judge. In the same fashion, It is the duty of the judge to tell the accused that he/she does not have to admit an offense under any pressure. If the defendant makes his own confession, the confession could be used against the defendant as evidence. If the judge is not convinced that the defendant admitted himself without any pressure, then the judge will write a confession statement.
  • It is recommended that no statement vague and unclear be done by the defendant.
  • Facts should not be exaggerated and only incidents that happened to be disclosed by the defendant.

Is confession/statement valid when made to the police?

The word "confession" was first used in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. All parts come under the heading of the main entrance and, therefore, be mentioned that the confession is only part of the admission. However, recognition is not defined under the Act. According to the law of evidence, the digest of Justice Mr. Stephen, confession is defined as the statement made at any time by someone who is charged with crimes which state or indicates disturbances that he/she has committed a crime. For admission as evidence is important to understand the shape recognition.

How do Police Interrogation Work ? part of a police investigation? defendant is brought under police custody in offense cognizable or non-cognizable

There are two types of confession:

  1. Judicial confession
  2. Extra-Judicial Confession

Distinguishing between the Judicial and Extra-Judicial Confession

  • confession of Judicial comes under section 164 of Cr.P.C made before a judge or court during the trial or committed.

  • confession is their extra-judicial confessions made before anyone other than those permitted by law to take confession. This can be done for any common man or police investigators.

  • To prove the confession of justice, the person to whom such confession is done need not be called as a witness.

  • To prove the extra-judicial confession, the person to whom the confession is called as a witness.

  • A judicial confession can be used as evidence against a person to prove his / her guilt if such confession is done voluntarily and under the influence.

  • Any extra-judicial confession can not be treated as evidence. The confession is important to be supported by some other evidence.

  • A conviction can be based on Judicial confession.

  • It is not safe and is not legally correct to base a conviction on admitted as such.

  • According to Article 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the confessions made to the police is not valid and can not be used as evidence in court. No acknowledgment was made to the Police to prove the guilt of the accused in court.

The reason for the Exclusion

One of the main reasons to exclude confessions made by the accused in the proof is that there are cases where the police were torturing the accused and thus forcing him/her to confess to a crime he/she may not do. A confession obtained by the use of such means unreliable, unethical, and legally wrong. More will volunteer in nature. The recognition will be invalidated in court in any possible form, direct, implied, or inferred from the behavior. The reason that this policy was adopted when the act was passed in 1872 may still apply.

Dagdu Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR. AIR. 1977 S.C. 1579

The judgment was given by the Supreme Court of India. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the Police efforts to achieve confessions in whatever way seems to be the end of all police investigations. The police should keep in mind that confessions may not always be a shortcut to a solution.

Better that instead of trying to "start" of the confessions they need to investigate and attempt to "arrive" it. If not, when they are busy with a shortcut solution, good evidence may be lost due to not paying attention to the real clue. Having gained recognition, there is often lethargic spirit for a thorough and full investigation with a view to building a case for confessions, then, be unacceptable for one reason or another, who fondles a case in court.

R V. Murugan Ramasay (1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.) in 268

In this case, the court noted that the police authority itself, however, be carefully controlled, bringing danger to people who brought abruptly under the shadow and therefore the law recognizes and provides against the danger that person makes a damning confession with the intention of calming authority and without regard truth of what they say.

Police presence

In circumstances where a person is a secret agent of the police sent for the very purpose of receiving confessions, the confession of the experience falls under the category of confession made in the police interrogation and thus does not apply in a court of law. However, the police presence did not make a valid confession.

If confessions are being given to others, and police interrogation it was relaxing there who overhears the confession it will not destroy the voluntary nature of the confession and can be considered as evidence in court.

Under the circumstances, in which the defendant had left her recording/confession and recording near the victim's body was found by a police interrogation, the Supreme Court declared the recording to be relevant because there is not even the shadow of the police when the letter was written and planted.
Conclusion in Police interrogation

According to the case and the law described above, confessions made in police interrogation considered invalid as evidence to prove the guilt of the accused under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A situation may arise in which a police officer unconscious, for revenge, or to defame someone, noting the confession of the fair use and fault mode. Therefore, it is made clear by the law and the courts and that confession can only be used as evidence if it is done before the presence of a judge or other evidence to support such confession. 

Other Legal Info