When an accused person confesses to a magistrate, it is often perceived by the public as conclusive evidence of guilt, frequently triggering a media trial before formal proceedings begin. However, legal jurisprudence dictates that while a confession is a strong piece of evidence, it is not inherently conclusive. To be admissible, a confession must be both voluntary and reliable. Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers magistrates to record confessions, serving as a safeguard to ensure the statement is made without inducement, threat, or promise. The magistrate is required to inform the individual that they are not bound to confess and that the statement will be used as evidence. Under sections 24-26 of the Evidence Act, 1872, confessions obtained through coercion or made to police officers while in custody—without a magistrate present—are generally inadmissible. Furthermore, statements made by witnesses under section 164 do not constitute substantive evidence but may be used to corroborate or contradict testimony during trial. Retracted confessions do not automatically lose their evidentiary value; courts evaluate the circumstances of the confession, its voluntariness, and whether it is supported by other evidence. Precedents such as Gour Chandra Pal v State (2007) and State v Mobile Kader (2014) affirm that a voluntary and reliable confession can remain a valid basis for conviction even if later retracted. The media is encouraged to use neutral language, such as reporting that a statement has been recorded rather than stating the accused has confessed, to mitigate the impact of public pressure and media trials.

বাংলাদেশ সময়: ১৮:৩৩:২৮   ১১৬ বার পঠিত   #Bangladesh Law  #Confession  #Criminal Law  #CrPC  #Evidence Act  #Judiciary  #Legal Rights