Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts · Admissions
Section 26: Confession by accused while in custody of Police not to be proved against him
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to matters and proceedings from before that date, as the repealing law provides.
In plain words
No confession made by a person while in police custody can be proved against them, unless it was made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate4, shall be proved as against such person. [Explanation.––In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George *** or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 18827 (10 of 1882).]
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 26
-
Rajendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal Etc.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court convicting the appellants u/s.302 IPC; and whether the appellants are the real persons who chased the deceased and killed him.
-
Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka
In the instant case, whether the motive projected and the crime has been proved and whether the circumstances lead to the culpability of the accused.
-
Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana
Issue arose whether the courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.302/34 and 201/34 IPC for the alleged murder of the son of the informant.
-
Narayan Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned judgment relying on the confessional FIR filed by the appellant-accused himself and the medical evidence to uphold his conviction, however, altering it from s.302,…
-
P Krishna Mohan Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Whether the statement of an accused u/s.161, Cr.P.C implicating co-accused can be looked into qua such co-accused at the stage of anticipatory bail or regular bail; whether the High Court exercised its discretion in a…
-
Renuka Prasad v. The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police
Whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused persons based on the testimony of the IOs which was founded only on s.161, CrPC statements of the witnesses; whether present was a case…
-
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.
-
Md. Bani Alam Mazid @ Dhan v. State of Assam
In a case where the appellant alongwith a co-accused was alleged to have kidnapped and murdered the minor daughter of PW1, the issues for consideration were: (i) Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence based on…
-
Raja Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh
Whether the prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the appellant-accused, beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee
Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent.
-
Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether Village Police Patil is a Police Officer in terms of s. 25 of the Evidence Act; and whether the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder.
-
Randeep Singh @ Rana & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Issue arose as regards conviction and sentence of the appellants u/ss.364, 302, 120-B and 201 IPC for abduction and brutal murder of the victim, if justified.
-
Santosh @ Rajesh @ Gopal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Evidence provided by the prosecution, if sufficient to secure a conviction of the appellant for the murder of the victim.
-
Allarakha Habib Memon Etc. v. State of Gujarat
As per the FIR (Exhibit-79) there were two eyewitnesses to the incident, PW-12-Police Constable and PW-11-the first informant who was deceased’s cousin brother. PW-12 claiming to be an eyewitness to the incident had…
- Yunus Khan v. State NCT of Delhi
-
Sunita Devi v. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Need for a comprehensive sentencing policy. Trial against the accused under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was conducted by the judicial officer in utmost haste and the accused was denied due…
-
Thakore Umedsing Nathusing v. State of Gujarat
Scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court; standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.
- Nanak Chand Sharma v. The State
- Yogendra Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation
-
Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana
Conviction of the appellants for offences punishable u/s.302 r/w s.149, IPC based on the statement of PW-9, as an eyewitness to the crime, if justified. Evidence – Of eyewitness – When not to be relied upon: Held:…
-
Rajesh & Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
In a case based on circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness to the kidnapping and murder, and where the prosecution’s case essentially turned upon the ‘recoveries’ made at the behest of the…
-
Union of India & Others v. Jogeshwar Swain
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal order of the constable found guilty of misconduct, since it was vitiated by infraction of the prescribed procedure as also was based on no evidence.
-
Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar
Whether the High Court erred in confirming the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant-accused for offences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 2012, despite serious lapses in…
- Sarthak Kapoor v. State
- Navi v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Boby v. State of Kerala
- Zakir Abdul Mirajkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- Abhishek v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
- Jafarudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala
- Parveen @ Sonu v. The State of Haryana
- Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Manoj Suryavanshi v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Ishwari Lal Yadav & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr v. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc
- Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another
- Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India & Ors.
- Navaneethakrishnan v. The State by Inspector of Police
- Rajesh Kumar C. K. Jain v. The State of Karnataka
- Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd.), and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
- Mukesh & Anr. v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors.
- State of U.P. v. Sunil
- Kishore Bhadke v. State of Maharashtra
- Ashiq Hussain Faktoo v. Union of India & Ors.
- Mehboobali &Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
- Indra Dalal v. State of Haryana
- R. Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police & Others
- Laut Kumar Yadav @ Kuri v. State of Utiar Pradesh
- Anuj Kumar Gupta @ Sethi Gupta v. State of Bihar
- State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari & Ors.
- Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. State of Maharashtra
- Sandeep v. State of U.P.
- Madhu v. State of Kerala
- Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. State of NCT of Delhi
- Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics
- Saquib Abdul Hameed Nachan v. State of Maharashtra
- S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan & Anr. v. State of M.P.
- Vikram Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
- Aftab Ahmad Ansari v. State of Uttaranchal
- Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur and Another v. State of Maharashtra
- Raju Premji v. Customs Ner Shillong Unit
- State of A.P. v. E. Satyanarayana
- State of Punjab v. Harjagdev Singh
- U.O.I. v. Bal Mukund & Ors.
- The Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad and Anr. v. P. Kata Rao
- Afzalkhan @ Babu Murtuzahan Pathan v. State of Gujarat
- Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Geejaganda Somaiah v. State of Karnataka
- Ram Singh v. Sonia and Ors.
- Aloke Nath Dutta and Ors. v. State of West Bengal
- Commissioner of Police, New Delhi v. Narender Singh
- Sivakumar v. State by Inspector of Police
- State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu@Afsan Guru
- Parmananda Pegu v. State of Assam
- Pandurang Kalu Patil and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
- Sanjay @ Kaka v. The State (Nct of Delhi)
- Lal Singh Etc. Etc v. State of Gujarat and Anr.
- State Through Superintendent of Police, Cbi/Sit Etc. v. Nalini and Ors. Etc. Etc.
- Sahib Singh v. State of Haryana
- State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Ram
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy
- Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab and Others
- M/S. Gujarat Machinery Manufacturers Ltd. v. Collector, Central Excise, Baroda.
- Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab
- Bheru Singh S/0 Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
- Dhananjoy Chatierjee @ Dhana v. State of West Bengal
- Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India and Ors.
- Balkishan A. Devidayal Etc. v. State of Maharashtra Etc.
- Mahabir Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar
- Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash
- Kanda Padayachi Alias Kandaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Jaffer Hussein Dastgir v. State of Maharashtra
- Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar
- Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar
- Jia Lal v. The Delhi Administration
- Prabhu v. State of U. P.
- Udai Bhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
- State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya