Ms. Shradha Pandey, Student, V B.A., LL.B (Hons.), TNNLU.
Ms. Deepa Manickam, Assistant Professor (Law), TNNLU.
Mr. A. Nirmal Singh Heera, Assistant Professor (Law), TNNLU.
Handing over the session to Resource Person.Advocate Mr. T. Lajapathi Roy started by sharing about the nature of Penal Law as they were the least trampled law by the Indian Law Makers. The IPC, in 1860 and IEA in 1872 were not tampered with by the Indian Lawmakers.
Sir said that out of the 511 provisions, section 508 of IPC is the most important but not often used by the police. If all the definitions of IPC are read and understood we will see that they have a larger meaning. And he also gave an example, if the employer removes the employee from service and the employee sits in a dharna opposite to the house of the employer, what offence has he committed? The answer that comes to our mind is that there is no offence at all. But he has committed the offence under Section 508 of IPC. “508. Act caused by inducing person to believe that he will be rendered an object of the Divine displeasure”. It is important to find out the reason why 508 came into existence and how the Vellore mutiny came into action.
TP Act student might say section 52 is the most interesting as it is lis pendens.
In IEA sec 25 is the most essential for 2 reasons. When IEA was framed in 1872, the legal system in India in Madras Province covered some parts of Odisha, entire Andhra, some parts of Karnataka, Kerala and entire Tamil Nadu. Travancore and Telangana had different jurisdiction. Section 25 was added because at that time it was under colonial rule. Many legislations prior to independence period, they did not have any safely measures against the torture of police. That the confession of the police officer is not admissible in evidence.
In 1872 it is important because at that time obtaining confession by torture is common practice. Samuel Johnson defined Torture in his dictionary as “a common practice in madras province to obtain confession”. Standing in sunlight from morning till evening, throwing chilli powder in eyes, in extreme cases pulling out in nails and keeping pencil between fingers. Ethnographic notes in south India authored by Edgar Thurston, has narrated the types of torture in madras province. It might seem that those forms of torture have disappeared, but it is not so. Every day confrontation with the police will help one realise that such forms of torture are not gone.
An example is when Rajiv Gandhi was murdered by LTTE when the person exploded and became the Human Bomb, some of the people from TN were also arrested and they’ve written books. Nalini Perarival was also arrested and they’ve written books about their experience. While extracting the confession the police put pencils in the middle of the fingers and crush the fingers while the pencil is in the middle to obtain a confession. They did not allow any person to sleep until confession. In some cases they also used methods used in Colonial days to obtain confession.
In 1872 this provision was enacted. It says “No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.” It is a Human Rights capsulated provision to provide protection against torture by the police. Though section 27 allows for a fact to be detected can be used, but it differs from case to case basis. Extra judicial confession even to a doctor is relevant, it is a weak piece of evidence and can be accepted only if there is corroboration. What is confession has not been defined by the IEA. We have to take the dictionary meaning as “it is a statement or some fact which is related to a crime or civil procedure incriminating the person”. Even if this is given to police officer without threat or coercion is not valid. The procedure is to record under section 164 of CrPC before the Magistrate.
The Human Rights culture is in elementary form, it has not evolved to a larger extent in Tamil Nadu. When the person went to the Police station with a blood stained sword AIR 1972 SC 922, 1972 CrLJ 626, the famous Khatri case. The police held that it was not confession. 2003 8 SCC 461 - defined the term confession.
In cases or order or any other offences confession is not admissible. In some cases whether a Narcotic officer is a police officer? The SC judgement says that they are not police officers, 199 6 SCC 1
Sir’s view is that it is an incorrect judgement as they also exercise a lot of police powers.
We have to look at the TADA act. A lot of people were arrested under this act all over India. Section 15 is a draconian section which says that any confession to a police officer is the police officer is not below the rank of superintendent of police, in that case the police officer can reduce the confession to writing or electronic form and in the bottom, they have to make an endorsement to the effect that it was a voluntary act recorded and is valid confession. This was put to test in Khartar Singh’s case (Kartar singh v State of Punjab) where it was stated that confession recorded by the police and if it is to be used against the co-accused?, whether it would be valid or not? The court said that the police have free hand to pick and choose the accused. The police will get hold of informers and record confessions against people who are not in friendly terms with the state such as Human Rights activists. Article 20 (3) protects against self - incrimination and is constitutional. In Miranda v Arizona when Miranda rule came into existence by the US Supreme Court in 1966, where they had a right to remain silent. The five judges gave the judgement to the effect that TADA is valid and rejected these arguments. The courts held that identification using photographs is not valid. Sir believes that the judgement is completely incorrect and is against the constitution. It violates Fundamental Rights.
If we compare the pre-constitutional days prior to 1950, the laws though they had safety measures against torture and Human Rights protection, the laws were subsequently interpreted in TADA case that confession to the police officer are valid. In 1948 we had the Universal declaration of HR. Sir says that unless the real constitutional structure is preserved, the mere outward patriotism has no meaning. If the life and liberty of the individual is preserved then article 20 (3) would have been given precedence in Kartar Singh’s case.
With this, sir has concluded his speech and the floor was open to the question and answers. Sir was patiently answered all the questions raised by the participants.
Lastly, Ms. M.V. Swathi, student, III B.A., LL.B (Hons), TNNLU proposed the Vote of Thanks. As such, the event formally concluded.
