Evidence Act 1872 Section 64

Evidence Act Section 64 addresses the admissibility of confessions made to police officers during investigations. It specifies that such confessions are generally not admissible as evidence against the accused in court. This rule protects individuals from coercion and ensures that confessions are made voluntarily and fairly.

Understanding Section 64 is vital for both criminal defense and prosecution. It safeguards the rights of the accused and maintains the integrity of the judicial process by preventing forced or fabricated confessions from influencing verdicts.

Evidence Act Section 64 – Exact Provision

This section clearly prohibits the use of confessions made to police officers as evidence against the accused in court. The rationale is to prevent misuse of power by police and to protect the accused from unfair pressure or torture. Such confessions are considered unreliable unless made in the presence of a magistrate or under special circumstances.

• Confessions to police officers are inadmissible in court.

• Protects accused from coercion or forced confessions.

• Ensures confessions are voluntary and reliable.

• Exceptions exist if confession is made before a magistrate.

Explanation of Evidence Act Section 64

This section bars the use of confessions made to police officers as evidence against the accused. It affects accused persons, police officers, and courts during criminal trials.

• The section states confessions to police cannot be used as evidence.

• Affects accused persons, police, and judicial officers.

• Requires confessions to be voluntary and made before magistrates for admissibility.

• Triggers during police interrogation and investigation.

• Admissible confessions are those made to magistrates, not police.

• Confessions obtained by force or threat are inadmissible.

Purpose and Rationale of Evidence Act Section 64

The section aims to prevent abuse of power by police and protect the accused’s rights. It ensures that confessions are genuine and not the result of coercion or torture.

• Ensures reliability of evidence.

• Promotes fairness in criminal trials.

• Prevents manipulation or misuse of confessions.

• Strengthens judicial truth-finding.

When Evidence Act Section 64 Applies

This section applies during criminal investigations and trials when confessions are made to police officers. It can be invoked by the accused or their counsel to exclude such confessions from evidence.

• Applies when confession is made to police during investigation.

• Accused or defense can invoke this rule.

• Relevant in criminal cases, not civil.

• Does not apply if confession is made before magistrate.

• Exceptions include confessions made in presence of magistrate or under special legal provisions.

Burden and Standard of Proof under Evidence Act Section 64

Under Section 64, the prosecution cannot rely on confessions made to police officers as proof against the accused. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt using admissible evidence. This section complements Sections 101 to 114, which deal with presumptions and burden of proof, by excluding unreliable confessions.

• Prosecution bears burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Confessions to police do not shift burden to accused.

• Section 64 excludes certain evidence to maintain fairness.

Nature of Evidence under Evidence Act Section 64

This section deals specifically with the admissibility of oral evidence in the form of confessions made to police officers. It restricts such evidence due to concerns about voluntariness and reliability. Procedural safeguards require confessions to be made before magistrates or in other legally recognized ways.

• Focuses on oral evidence (confessions) to police.

• Restricts admissibility to protect accused rights.

• Requires procedural safeguards for admissibility.

• Limits use of evidence obtained during police interrogation.

Stage of Proceedings Where Evidence Act Section 64 Applies

Section 64 is relevant primarily during the trial stage when the prosecution attempts to introduce confessions made to police. It may also be considered during investigation and cross-examination to challenge evidence.

• Applies during trial when confession evidence is presented.

• Relevant in investigation for admissibility assessment.

• Used during cross-examination to exclude inadmissible confessions.

• Not applicable during appeal unless admissibility is questioned.

Appeal and Challenge Options under Evidence Act Section 64

Rulings excluding confessions under Section 64 can be challenged through appeals or revisions. Higher courts review whether the trial court correctly applied the law and protected the accused’s rights. Appellate courts maintain strict standards to prevent wrongful convictions based on inadmissible confessions.

• Exclusion of confession can be challenged on appeal.

• Revision petitions may be filed for procedural errors.

• Higher courts ensure correct application of Section 64.

• Timely appeals preserve accused’s rights.

Example of Evidence Act Section 64 in Practical Use

Person X is accused of theft and during police interrogation, he confesses to the crime. However, during trial, the defense objects to the confession being admitted as evidence under Section 64. The court excludes the confession since it was made to a police officer and not before a magistrate. The prosecution must then rely on other admissible evidence to prove guilt.

• Confession to police excluded to protect accused’s rights.

• Prosecution must produce independent evidence for conviction.

Historical Background of Evidence Act Section 64

Section 64 was introduced in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 to prevent forced confessions and protect accused persons from police abuse. Historically, courts recognized the risk of coercion during police interrogations and excluded such confessions. Judicial interpretations have reinforced this protection over time.

• Introduced in 1872 to safeguard accused rights.

• Courts historically excluded police confessions due to coercion risk.

• Judicial evolution strengthened procedural safeguards.

Modern Relevance of Evidence Act Section 64

In 2026, Section 64 remains crucial for protecting human rights amid advanced interrogation techniques. With electronic recordings and e-courts, courts ensure confessions are voluntary and properly documented. The section supports judicial reforms promoting fair trials and digital evidence management.

• Applies to digital and electronic confession evidence.

• Supports judicial reforms for fair trial standards.

• Ensures confessions are voluntary in e-court environments.

• Maintains protection against coercion in modern investigations.

Related Evidence Act Sections

• Evidence Act Section 25 – Confession to Police Officer

  – Prohibits confessions made to police from being used as evidence.

• Evidence Act Section 26 – Confession Caused by Threat or Promise

  – Excludes confessions obtained through coercion or inducement.

• Evidence Act Section 27 – Discovery of Facts from Confession

  – Allows evidence discovered as a result of a confession to be admissible.

• Evidence Act Section 65 – Admissibility of Electronic Records

  – Governs the use of electronic evidence including recorded confessions.

• CrPC Section 164 – Recording of Confessions by Magistrate

  – Provides procedure for recording confessions before magistrates.

• IPC Section 191 – Giving False Evidence

  – Addresses perjury and false statements in court.

Case References under Evidence Act Section 64

1. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003, AIR 2003 SC 3052)

   – Confession made to police is inadmissible unless made before magistrate.

2. Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952, AIR 1952 SC 343)

   – Emphasized voluntariness as essential for admissible confession.

3. Ram Narayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1962, AIR 1962 SC 1414)

   – Confession to police excluded to prevent coercion.

Key Facts Summary for Evidence Act Section 64

• Section:

  64

• Title:

  Confession to Police Officer

• Category:

  Admissibility, Oral Evidence, Confession

• Applies To:

  Accused, Police, Courts

• Proceeding Type:

  Criminal Trials

• Interaction With:

  Sections 25, 26, 27, CrPC Section 164

• Key Use:

  Excluding confessions made to police from evidence to protect accused rights

Conclusion on Evidence Act Section 64

Evidence Act Section 64 plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights of accused persons by excluding confessions made to police officers from admissible evidence. This prevents misuse of power and ensures that only voluntary, reliable confessions made before magistrates influence court decisions.

Understanding and applying this section is essential for fair criminal trials. It balances the need for effective investigation with the protection of fundamental legal rights, maintaining the integrity of the justice system in India.

FAQs on Evidence Act Section 64

What is the main rule under Section 64 of the Evidence Act?

Section 64 states that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as evidence against the accused. This protects individuals from forced or coerced confessions during police interrogation.

Are there exceptions to the rule in Section 64?

Yes, confessions made before a magistrate or under certain legal provisions may be admissible. Section 64 specifically excludes confessions made only to police officers.

Why are confessions to police officers inadmissible?

Because such confessions may be obtained under coercion, threat, or torture, making them unreliable and unfair as evidence in court.

How does Section 64 affect the burden of proof?

It prevents the prosecution from relying on police confessions to prove guilt, ensuring the burden remains on proving the case beyond reasonable doubt with admissible evidence.

Can a confession recorded electronically to police be admitted?

Even if electronically recorded, confessions to police are generally inadmissible under Section 64 unless made before a magistrate or meeting other legal conditions.