Why Indian police resort to torture?

Why Indian police resort to torture?

"Cadoudal was obviously in a position to know who the “young prince” was. Napoleon (Bonaparte) vehemently rejected some of his aides’ suggestion to use torture to make him talk, preferring standard police investigation methods. A real, bloodthirsty tyrant would not have hesitated a single instant to use the barbaric but effective practice of torture." The Duke of Enghien Affair: A Plot Against Napoleon - General Michel Franceschi (ret.)
Yes, in the present civilised world, only a tyrannic society would assent to employ torture, a barbaric method, for the investigation of crime. These days, we see a lot of clamour against the torturous methods resorted to by the police personnel in India. Have you ever wondered what is the root cause for this disturbing social menace?

To a great extent, the main culprit is Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in my opinion... Why?

The duty of the police is to investigate into the crime, apprehend the suspected offender and to bring him/her before the Courts of Law. Whenever a crime is reported to the police, it should register a crime and thereafter investigate into the same in order to find out who perpetuated it.

Whenever a crime is reported, the police is expected to investigate into the matter and identify its perpetrators. In these days, any delay in identifying and apprehending the offenders would be fatal to the credibility of any investigating agency. The public outcry, the media pressure and the constant demand from the higher authorities can exert enormous pressure on the investigating officers to apprehend the offenders at the earliest. In the given circumstances, the easiest course open will be to resort to violent methods for extraction of information... nick named as "Third-Degree Tortures". Our Courts have repeatedly denounced the use of torture by the police.. but when the root cause persists in the statute book, we cannot expect this barbaric practice to end.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 maintains that: " No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offense." This means, what ever that is stated to the police by the suspect cannot be used against him, during the trial against him. This restriction is imposed with an intention to make sure that the police would not employ force of any kind on the suspected offender, in order to extract a confession from him/her.

Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act maintains that: "No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person." Section 26 proceeds in the same spirit of Section 25. Unless made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, no confession made by a suspected offender to a police officer, can be used against him/her, during the trial.

The general mistrust of the Legislature towards the integrity of the investigating police is reflected in both Section 25 and 26. These sections act as a safeguard against torture, by discouraging the police from resorting to torturous questioning of suspects, during investigative process, with a view to extract confessions. The undertone of these sections is that, an offense is to be investigated by obtaining confessions but through intelligent investigation into the offense.

But, the civility ensured by the two provisions is greatly whittled down due to the operation of Section 27 of the Act. Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act maintains that:

"Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offense, in custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."

As per Section 27, anything that is spoken to by the suspected offender to the police officer, which directly led to the discovery of a fact, that portion of what is spoken to by the suspected offender, which directly led into the discovery of the said fact, would be admissible as an evidence during the trial. To illustrate the point, imagine X is accused of murdering Y and is in the custody of the police officer. X says to the police officer.. "come with me, I will show you the knife with which I stabbed Y." The police officer follows X to a place from where the police personnel takes out the knife from its hiding. The sentence "come with me, I will show you the knife with which I stabbed Y." and the fact that the discovery of the knife was made will be admissible in evidence against X, during his trial. The knife would be marked as a material object.

A confessional statement otherwise inadmissible becomes admissible by virtue of Section 27 as follows: (read as a single sentence):

(a) A person who is accused of an offense
(b) gives some information to the police
(c) while he/she is in the custody of the police
(d) which has led to the discovery of a fact/thing

Then,

(e) that part of the information so tendered
(f) which distinctly relates to the fact/thing discovered
(g) will be admissible in evidence against the said accused
(h) if deposed to before the Court by the police, during the trial.

According to Hon'ble Supreme Court "The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is he doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information." Bodh Raj v. State of J&K reported in (2002) 8 SCC 45

What is wrong with Section 27?
In the famous Privy Council case Pulukuri Kottaya v. R (reported in 51 CWN 474 or A 1947 PC 67), while discussing the impact of Section 27, Sir John Beaumont wisely observed:

"Clearly the extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate............. That ban (imposed by the two preceding sections [i.e., Sections 25 and 26] ) was presumably inspired by the fear of the Legislature that a person under police influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. But if all that is required to lift the ban be the inclusion in the confession of information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect."
There are numerous circumstances which can pressurise an investigating officer to complete the investigative process at the earliest. Since the career prospects of police personnel are linked to the fast and successful culmination of the investigations they undertake, it would not be surprising if they become overzealous and resort to violence, in the process. It may be true that by employing torture, some truth can be revealed.. but it is also true that, innocent numerous are being subjected to barbaric tortures.. on the excuse that it is for common good.

We are driven by the basic legal principle that "everyone is deemed innocent until proved otherwise.." and still it is a harsh reality that numerous languish in "torture chambers" indefinitely, even before reaching a Court of Law. Our laws postulated principles against "self-incrimination" and still we allow Section 27 - "the Barbaric Shortcut" to remain in our statute book. Until we delete or amend this section in the light of the ground realities now existing, you and me are in the constant danger of being tortured anytime, "in the hands of law... for common good" until you confess whatever you are not even aware of...

The need of the hour is a good revamp of our police-force enabling them to undertake investigations scientifically, by employing intelligence.. and not muscle-power.

To be continued...