Question: A confession is induced by the following expression -“Have you my rings? Be a good girl and tell the truth”. Is the confession relevant? Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A confession is induced by the following expression -“Have you my rings? Be a good girl and tell the truth”. Is the… Read More »

Question: A confession is induced by the following expression -“Have you my rings? Be a good girl and tell the truth”. Is the confession relevant? Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A confession is induced by the following expression -“Have you my rings? Be a good girl and tell the truth”. Is the confession relevant? Answer In the present case the induced confession is followed by the expression “Have you my rings? Be a good girl and tell the truth” if it...

Question: A confession is induced by the following expression -“Have you my rings? Be a good girl and tell the truth”. Is the confession relevant?

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A confession is induced by the following expression -“Have you my rings? Be a good girl and tell the truth”. Is the confession relevant?

Answer

In the present case the induced confession is followed by the expression “Have you my rings? Be a good girl and tell the truth” if it is induced by a person in authority i.e. a policeman or a magistrate then such confessions induced out of the accused person shall not be made admissible by virtue of section 24 of the IEA.

Section 24 read with section 28 entails that Confession caused by inducement (temporal kind – worldly benefit), threat or promise, is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if it is made under the influence of person-in-authority over the matter and not from the relative or friend of the accused (Pyare Lal v. the State of Rajasthan, 1963, SC).

In the case of Rex v. Hannah Kingston (1880), the accused girl was charged with administering poison with intent to murder. The surgeon who was called in saw the girl and said to her, “You are under suspicion of this and you had better tell all you know”, whereupon she made a statement to the surgeon. The court held that the statement was not admissible.

In the case of Rex v. David Dunn (1881), the accused was indicted for stealing a hymn book and a witness proved that the prisoner wished to sell the book to him and that he told the prisoner he had better tell where he got it. The following expression was used:-You must not tell us what he said. Here, the witness was not a person in any authority. Such evidence was rejected by the court.

The present case doesn’t fall under confession taken by Inducement. Any Confession to a Spiritual advisor under inducement (moral, spiritual & religious – not worldly) for the good of his Soul is admissible.

For example: – i) ‘do not run your soul into more sin but tell the truth’, ii) ‘have you my wrings? Be a good girl and tell the truth’.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-10-05T11:16:33+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story