Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 explicitly states that "No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence." This rules out point 1. Section 26 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." This means that a confession made while in police custody is admissible if made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Point 2 describes this specific exception. While a confession to a respectable person (point 3) might be admissible if voluntary and not hit by Section 24 (inducement, threat, or promise), Section 26 provides a statutory condition for admissibility even when in police custody, making point 2 the most clearly and specifically admissible scenario described among the options in the context of the restrictions imposed by Sections 25 and 26.
When is a confessional statement by an accused to be proved against him in criminal proceedings ? 1. When it is made to a police officer 2. When it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate 3. When it is made to a respectable person of the locality where he resides Select the correct answer using the code given below :
Asked in UPSC CISF AC EXE 2022 · Topic: The Governance System (Role of Judiciary in Governance)
More Indian Polity and Governance questions
- Which one of the following is not a public document ?
- Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched as per the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ?
- Which one of the following statements with respect to number of witnesses is not correct ?
- Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is given under which one of the following Sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ?
- ‘A’, the Captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat ‘B’, with thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel and faces the risk to run down boat ‘C’, with two passengers on board. ‘A’ altered his course to save passengers in boat ‘B’ without any intention to run down the boat ‘C’ and in good faith. In the process of altering his course, he runs down boat ‘C’ with 2 passengers. In this case, ‘A’ can be held guilty of which one of the offences given below ?
- Which one of the following statements is correct ?
- Public Interest Litigation has been introduced by
- The system of Judicial Review is Prevalent in