Evidence Act: Section 32 Admissibility of Confessional Statement
evidence ailet advanced discussionYaar, what's the take on this one? I think Section 32 is too harsh, it completely excludes confessional statements as evidence. Main point is, how are you going to catch the culprits if the only witness (the accused) can't even talk about it? You can't just take away the right to self-defence and say it's against the principle of 'you can't compel someone to be a witness against themselves'.
In many cases, people's confessions are crucial evidence. Take the famous Bhagwati vs. State of Bihar case, the Supreme Court ruled that an accused can be compelled to give statements if it's in the interest of justice. Now, what's the difference between that and a regular confession? Why should Section 32 be an absolute bar?
Agreed, confessions can be coerced, but isn't there a proper way to deal with that?
Bhai, don't stress about Section 32. Yes, a confessional statement is inadmissible under Sec 32 of the Evidence Act. It's a fundamental rule, yaar. But don't forget, this rule has exceptions! Sec 32(1) specifically allows confessions made to public servants, like police officers, to be admissible in court. So, keep this nuance in mind and you'll ace this topic, ab topper!