Question: Confession to doctor | The accused was admitted to a hospital for treatment. He made a confession of guilt to the medical officer. The doctor told him that it would be better if he tells the truth as to how he received the wounds injuries. Explain whether the confession made to the medical officer is admissible in… Read More »

Question: Confession to doctor | The accused was admitted to a hospital for treatment. He made a confession of guilt to the medical officer. The doctor told him that it would be better if he tells the truth as to how he received the wounds injuries. Explain whether the confession made to the medical officer is admissible in evidence or not. [U.P.H.J.S. 1995 and 1998] Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. Confession to doctor | [The accused was admitted to a hospital...

Question: Confession to doctor | The accused was admitted to a hospital for treatment. He made a confession of guilt to the medical officer. The doctor told him that it would be better if he tells the truth as to how he received the wounds injuries.

Explain whether the confession made to the medical officer is admissible in evidence or not. [U.P.H.J.S. 1995 and 1998]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. Confession to doctor | [The accused was admitted to a hospital for treatment. He made a confession of guilt to the medical officer… Explain whether the confession made to the medical officer is admissible in evidence or not.]

Answer

Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 pertains to proof of admissions against persons making them and by or on their behalf has three exceptions

  1. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.
  2. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
  3. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.

A confessional statement if not made by the accused under inducement, threat, or promise, is admissible in evidence. An extra-judicial confession though admissible is considered a weak piece of evidence and ordinarily, the Courts would look for other corroboration in order to record a conviction on the strength of such extra-judicial confession.

In the case of Chandubhai Abhesingbhai Chauhan v. State (2013), the court has observed the following:

Extrajudicial confession is normally said to be a weak piece of evidence. It could not be acted upon if it is found lacking in the probability or if it does not inspire confidence. If a confession does (not) violate any one of the conditions operative under Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act, it would be admissible in evidence even then, the court has a duty to consider whether it could be accepted as true. If it casts doubt on the veracity or voluntariness, normally the court would refuse to act upon the confession even if it is found to be admissible in evidence.

One important question, in regard to which the court has to be satisfied with, is whether, when the accused made the confession, he was a free man or his movements were controlled by the police, either by themselves or through some other agency employed by them for the purpose of securing such a confession.

In the present case at hand, as the facts show it is clear that the accused made an extra-judicial confession to the doctor voluntarily as a free agent, not in the presence of police of his agents and that it is not hit by the provisions of Section 26 of the Evidence Act.

The Doctor while examining him had asked him as to what had happened and how he sustained the injuries and he gave the answer in his own words and the Doctor recorded the same. Therefore, this disclosure made by the accused to the Doctor can be relied upon against the accused. So, it will be held admissible in evidence provided it is cogent and reliable evidence.


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 2021-09-29T06:21:25+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story