Confessions made in police custody are inadmissible in court, but police often coerce them anyway
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act states that confessions made to police are not admissible as evidence. Despite this, police frequently use torture or threats to extract confessions, which are later used to justify arrests. In the Thalium poisoning case, police attempted to extort money from the victim's family and pressured them to drop the case. The lack of oversight in police stations allows such abuses to continue unchecked. Courts often rely on other evidence, but coerced confessions can still influence investigations. This undermines the integrity of the legal process and violates constitutional rights. The absence of CCTV in police stations exacerbates this problem, enabling torture without accountability.
“अगर अगर वह कस्टडी में है तो जो भी पुलिस ने बयान लिखा वोह इन एडमिस बल है यह हमारे य बहुत अच्छा कानून है मतलब हा मतलब अरेस्टेड का अरेस्टेड के बाद में आपने एक मुलजिम को अरेस्ट कर लिया बाद में पुलिस ने कोई बयान ले लिया जिसको कन्फेशनल स्टेटमेंट मान लो व एडमिस बलट इ न” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
“मेरा द मेरा दायित्व अदालत का अगर मुझे कानून इजाजत दे जैसे न्यूयॉर्क में दे रहा है कि कोई भी पुलिस वाला मेरे क्लाइंट को मेरी गैज हाजरी में क्वेश्चन नहीं कर सकता” — Tanveer Ahmed Mir
Flaws in legal procedures, such as inadmissible confessions and lack of transparency in police stations, enable abuse of power and undermine the integrity of the justice system.