A an accused while in police custody makes a statement to the doctor that injury in his person (body) was caused by the murdered person. Is the statement made by A to doctor relevant? Give reasons in support of your answer

Question: A, an accused, while in police custody, makes a statement to the doctor that injury in his person (body) was caused by the murdered person. Is the statement made by A to the doctor relevant? Give reasons in support of your answer

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A, an accused, while in police custody, makes a statement to the doctor that injury in his person (body) was caused by the murdered person. Is the statement made by A to the doctor relevant? Give reasons in support of your answer.]

Answer

Under section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, no confession made by a person in custody to any person other than a police officer shall be admissible unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. A confessional statement made by an accused to a Doctor while he is in the custody of a police officer would also be thus covered by section 26.

The facts of the present case are borrowed from the case of K Padayachi v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1972 SC 66 where the accused whilst in police custody made a statement before the doctor that the injury on his person was caused by the murdered person, as the statement does not amount to a confession, it is not barred under this section but can be relied upon as an admission under section 21 of the fact that he was in the deceased’s room.

In the aforementioned case, the question regarding admissibility of the statement made by the accused before the doctor in view of section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, came up for consideration.

In his statement, the accused had stated that it was the deceased who had caused injury on his toe on a fatal night. Such a statement was made while the accused was in the custody of the police. The Supreme Court held that the statement in question did not amount to a confession. It was an admission of fact no doubt incriminating and which established the presence of the accused in the deceased s room, but such statement was not barred under section 26.

The Apex Court in the case of M.A. Antony v. State of Kerala (2009 (6) SCC 220) and B.A. Umesh v. State of Karnataka (2011 (3) SCC 85) has taken up the similar position that an extra-judicial confession made to a doctor while in the custody of the police officer is not inadmissible.

Thus, in the present case at hand, when A, an accused while in police custody makes a statement to the doctor that injury in his person (body) was caused by the murdered person shall be held not be admissible against him in the court of law but will only be allowed as admission relevant under section 21 about the presence of accused with the murderer.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X