Md. Nayem Alimul Hyder1*, Md. Rafiqul Islam Hossaini2 and Sirajum Monira Hossaini3
Abstract: The Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh in Article 35(4) has ensured the protection of an accused person from being compelled to be a witness against himself. Confession is an exception to the general rule embraced in the Constitution as it means the direct, express, and plenary admission of guilt by the accused person. It is the most persuasive evidence against the confessor, and once it is brought into evidence, it frequently results in an accused person’s indictment even in the absence of any more proof or corroborating evidence. The fate of such cases must be decided by precedents rather than statutory provisions, as no law directly addresses whether a confession may be the sole legal basis for a conviction. There are ongoing allegations that law enforcement officers routinely and widely use torture and other forms of ill-treatment to coerce confessions. The objective of this qualitative and analytical study is to scrutinize the existing legal provisions on confession and to figure out the stance of the judiciary in admitting various types of confessions as evidence through case laws. Moreover, this study evaluates the confession recording procedure of Bangladesh in light of international standards. This study recommends the implementation of the contemporary practice of recording confessions in Bangladesh in the presence of a lawyer while being questioned. Additionally, to ensure compliance with legal standards, confessions may be recorded using audio-video technology.
Keywords: Confession, judicial and extra-judicial confession, evidentiary value
References
Abdul Hossain and others v. State, 46 DLR (HCD) 77(1994).
AbulKhayer and 3 others v. State, 46 DLR (HCD) 212 (1994).
Anisuzzaman, S., & Efat, S. I. J. (2015). Admissibility and evidentiary value of confession: conflicts and harmony between rules of law and rules of prudence in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. South East Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, 7(4), 54–62.
Appleby, S. C., Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2013). Police-induced confessions: An empirical analysis of their content and impact. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(2), 111–128.
Banoo, S. (2020). Confession Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872-a Critique. Available at SSRN 3669253.
Bimal Chandra Das alias Vim and 3 others v. State, 51DLR (HCD) 466 (1999).
Bura Yunus v. State, 59 DLR 549.
Emp. v. Ramrao Mangesh, 33 Cr LJ 666 (1932).
Farid Karim v. State, 45 DLR 171.
Godsey, M. A. (2005). Rethinking the involuntary confession rule: Toward a workable test for identifying compelled self-incrimination. Calirfonia Law Review, 93, 465.
Haque, Justice M. H. (2019), Trial of Civil Suits and Criminal Cases, 3rd Ed.
Committee against Torture (2023). https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/
Islam, M. Nazrul (2018), Reflections on the Law of Evidence, 2nd Ed.
Lal Khan v. Emperor (AIR 1948 Lah. 48).
Manir, S. (6 Nov 2021, November 6). Proposal to improve the current state of recording confessional statement. The Daily Star. https://shorturl.at/dmwK7.
Md Humayun Kabir v. The State, 15 SCOB AD 76 (2021).
Mobarak Hossain v. State, BLD 286(b) (1981).
Monir, M CJ (2020), Law of Evidence, 12th Ed. Universal Law Publishing.
Monir Ahmed v. The State, 16 SCOB AD 51 (2022).
Moslemuddin and another v. State, 48 DLR 588 (1996).
Narayanswami v. Emp, PC 47(1939).
Nausher Ali v. State, 39 DLR (AD) 194 (1987).
Palvindar Kaur v. State of Punjab, SCJ 545 (1953).
Rafiq Ahmed v. State, 11 DLR SC 91(1959).
Ram Prakash v. State of Punjab AIR SC1 (1959).
State v. Ali Kibria, 43 DLR 512.
State v. Ershad Ali Sikder and another, 8 BLC 107.
State v. Kamal Ahmed, 49 DLR 381.
State v. Mozam, 9 BLC (HCD) 163 (2004).
State v. Mozammel and others, 9 BLC (2005).
State v. MM Rafiqul Hyder, 45 DLR (AD) 13.
State v. Md Gaush Meah, 10 BLC 74.
Stephen, J. F. (1904). A Digest of the Law of Evidence: By the Late Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. The editor.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
The Evidence Act, 1872.