Admissibility of Evidence under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Abstract

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 bars admissibility of any confession as an evidence being adduced by any police officer. This differential treatment in terms of admissibility and reliability under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is based on the presumption that there is a vested interest in tampering the confession and also to prevent any infliction of torture on the accused. However, the fact that it only includes „police officer? has been a steady object of judicial interpretation for repeated confirmation. The epicenter of this controversy is the legal position of a genre of various cadres of administrative officers like Excise Officers, Customs Officials and Railway Protection Force, etc. whose domain of powers are analogous to that of police officers in nature. Thereby, it invites a remote possibility that the accused may be forced to confess by the former ones. Now, the question arises as to whether section 25 should also include this genre of administrative officers under its ambit or should the nomenclature override the criterion of analogous powers? This article has tried to answer these questions by tracing the tools of various interpretations that the court has resorted to in order to solve this dilemma. The article would show that how judiciary in the process of locating the intention of the legislature, has instead introduced an unstable position in this regard.