Evidence Act 1872 Section 167

Evidence Act Section 167 focuses on how confessions made to police officers during investigations should be recorded. It ensures that such confessions are documented properly to maintain their authenticity and reliability in court proceedings.

Understanding this section is vital for both criminal practitioners and courts, as it governs the admissibility of confessions, which can significantly impact the outcome of trials.

Evidence Act Section 167 – Exact Provision

This section mandates that any confession made to a police officer must be written down, read back to the confessor, and signed by them. Additionally, the confession's substance must be entered into the police diary. This process safeguards the confession's integrity and protects against coercion or fabrication.

• Confession must be reduced to writing by the police officer.

• The written confession must be read to the confessor.

• The confessor must sign the written confession.

• The confession's substance must be recorded in the police diary.

• Ensures transparency and authenticity of confessions.

Explanation of Evidence Act Section 167

This section prescribes the formal procedure for recording confessions made to police officers during investigation.

• What it says:

  Confessions must be written, read back, and signed.

• Who it affects:

  Accused persons, police officers, and courts.

• Key evidentiary requirements:

  Written record, reading to confessor, signature, diary entry.

• Triggering events:

  Confession made during police interrogation.

• Admissible:

  Confessions recorded per this section.

• Inadmissible:

  Confessions not properly recorded or coerced.

Purpose and Rationale of Evidence Act Section 167

This section aims to ensure that confessions made to police officers are recorded accurately and voluntarily, preventing misuse or false confessions. It promotes fairness and strengthens the judicial process by preserving reliable evidence.

• Ensures reliable and authentic confession evidence.

• Promotes fairness in police investigations.

• Prevents manipulation or coercion of accused persons.

• Strengthens the truth-finding function of courts.

When Evidence Act Section 167 Applies

This section applies during the investigation phase when a confession is made to a police officer. It is invoked to ensure proper recording and admissibility of such confessions in both criminal trials and inquiries.

• Applicable when confession is made to police officer.

• Invoked by prosecution or defense to verify confession validity.

• Relevant in criminal investigations and trials.

• Scope limited to confessions recorded by police officers.

• Exceptions include confessions made to magistrates or others.

Burden and Standard of Proof under Evidence Act Section 167

The burden lies on the prosecution to prove that the confession was recorded following the procedure prescribed in Section 167. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, as confessions can heavily influence the outcome of criminal cases. This section interacts with Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, which deal with the voluntariness and admissibility of confessions.

• Prosecution bears burden to prove proper recording.

• Standard of proof: beyond reasonable doubt.

• Interacts with voluntariness provisions under Sections 24–30.

Nature of Evidence under Evidence Act Section 167

This section deals with the admissibility and procedural requirements of oral confessions made to police officers. It imposes limitations to prevent coerced or fabricated confessions and mandates procedural safeguards.

• Focuses on oral confession evidence.

• Requires written documentation and signature.

• Limits admissibility to properly recorded confessions.

• Procedural obligation on police officers to record confession.

Stage of Proceedings Where Evidence Act Section 167 Applies

Section 167 applies primarily during the investigation and trial stages. Confessions recorded under this section are scrutinized during trial, especially in cross-examination, to assess their admissibility and reliability.

• Investigation stage: recording confession.

• Trial stage: admissibility and cross-examination.

• Inquiry stage: when relevant.

• Appeal stage: challenging confession validity.

Appeal and Challenge Options under Evidence Act Section 167

Rulings on the admissibility of confessions under Section 167 can be challenged through appeals or revisions. Higher courts review whether the confession was recorded as per the section and whether it was voluntary. Appellate courts intervene only if procedural lapses or coercion are proven.

• Admissibility rulings challenged via appeal or revision.

• Higher courts review procedural compliance and voluntariness.

• Strict standards for appellate interference.

• Timelines governed by criminal procedure rules.

Example of Evidence Act Section 167 in Practical Use

Person X is arrested on suspicion of theft. During police interrogation, X confesses to the crime. The police officer writes down the confession, reads it aloud to X, who signs it, and records the confession's substance in the diary. At trial, the prosecution presents this confession as evidence. The defense challenges its voluntariness, but since Section 167 procedures were followed, the confession is admitted.

• Ensures confession authenticity through procedural safeguards.

• Protects accused from coerced confessions.

Historical Background of Evidence Act Section 167

Introduced in 1872, Section 167 was designed to regulate how confessions to police officers are recorded, addressing concerns about forced or fabricated confessions. Historically, courts required strict compliance with this section to admit confessions. Judicial interpretations have reinforced its procedural safeguards over time.

• Introduced to prevent coerced confessions.

• Courts emphasized strict compliance historically.

• Judicial evolution strengthened procedural safeguards.

Modern Relevance of Evidence Act Section 167

In 2026, Section 167 remains crucial due to increased scrutiny of police procedures and the rise of electronic recording. While electronic confession recordings supplement the section, the legal requirement for written and signed confessions persists, ensuring reliability in digital and e-court environments.

• Applies to digital and electronic evidence contexts.

• Supports judicial reforms for transparency.

• Widely used in modern criminal trials.

Related Evidence Act Sections

• Evidence Act Section 24 – Confession Caused by Threat or Promise

  – Addresses voluntariness and inadmissibility of coerced confessions.

• Evidence Act Section 25 – Confession to Police Officer

  – Generally excludes confessions made to police except under Section 167.

• Evidence Act Section 26 – Confession to Magistrate

  – Deals with confessions made to magistrates.

• Evidence Act Section 27 – Discovery of Fact

  – Allows admissibility of facts discovered due to confession.

• CrPC Section 161 – Examination of Witnesses by Police

  – Governs police recording of statements during investigation.

• CrPC Section 164 – Recording of Confessions and Statements

  – Provides procedure for magistrates recording confessions.

Case References under Evidence Act Section 167

1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996, AIR 1393)

   – Emphasized the necessity of compliance with Section 167 for confession admissibility.

2. Kishan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1976, AIR 2414)

   – Held that non-compliance with Section 167 renders confession inadmissible.

3. Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1978, AIR 1511)

   – Affirmed the requirement of signature and reading over confession.

Key Facts Summary for Evidence Act Section 167

• Section:

  167

• Title:

  Confession Recording Procedure

• Category:

  Admissibility, Oral Evidence, Procedural Safeguards

• Applies To:

  Accused, Police Officers, Courts

• Proceeding Type:

  Criminal Investigation and Trial

• Interaction With:

  Sections 24–30, CrPC Sections 161, 164

• Key Use:

  Ensuring authentic, voluntary confessions during police interrogation

Conclusion on Evidence Act Section 167

Section 167 of the Evidence Act plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights of accused persons by mandating a strict procedure for recording confessions made to police officers. This ensures that confessions are authentic, voluntary, and reliable, thereby upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Proper adherence to this section prevents misuse of confessions and protects against wrongful convictions. For legal practitioners and courts, understanding and applying Section 167 correctly is essential to maintain fairness and truth in criminal trials.

FAQs on Evidence Act Section 167

What is the main requirement of Section 167?

Section 167 requires that any confession made to a police officer must be written down, read back to the confessor, signed by them, and recorded in the police diary to ensure authenticity.

Who must sign the confession under Section 167?

The person making the confession must sign the written statement after it is read to them, confirming that the contents are accurate and voluntary.

Can a confession recorded without following Section 167 be admitted?

No, confessions not recorded in compliance with Section 167 are generally inadmissible as evidence in court due to lack of procedural safeguards.

Does Section 167 apply to confessions made to magistrates?

No, confessions made to magistrates are governed by Section 164 of the CrPC and Section 26 of the Evidence Act, not Section 167.

How does Section 167 protect accused persons?

By mandating written, read, and signed confessions, Section 167 prevents forced or fabricated confessions, ensuring that only voluntary and reliable confessions are admitted in court.