CHAPTER 4(Evidence)New1

7/28/2019 CHAPTER 4(Evidence)New1

1/56

1

CHAPTER 4ADMISSION, CONFESSION, STATEMENT TO A POLICE OFFICER

Contents4.1 Admission, Confession, Statement to a police Officer Admission 24.2 Confession 104.2.1 Admissible Confessions 144.2.2 Inadmissible Confessions 254.2.3 Value of Confessions 324.2.4 Retracted Confession 434.3 Statements to a Polic Officer 47Key Terms 55Assignment Questions 56Short Questions 56


2/56

2

CHAPTER 4 ()

ADMISSION, CONFESSION, STATEMENT TO A POLICE OFFICER

4.1Admission, Confession, Statement to a police Officer

Section (17) of evidence Act defines admission. It is defined that an

Admission is a statement, oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to

any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and

under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned. According to this definition it can

be given oral or documentary. An admission can be made either in criminal cases

or Civil Suits.

()

()

() ()


3/56

3

Illustration "The Dah that used in murder case was belonging to me "was Maung

Phyu's statement that statement did not make Maung Phyu admission

that he committed the whole case that statement was a fact, that is an

inference as to decide whether Mg Phyu committed an offence or not.

-

The section (18), (19), (20) there are persons who can make admission.

According to above section, persons who can make admission are-

() () ()

-

i. A party to the proceeding : or()

ii. An agent to such a party ; or()

iii.

A party suing or sued in a representative character : or

(For example Trustee, Administrator)

() -


4/56

4

iv. A person from whom the parties have derived their subject- matteror the suit during the continuance of such interest. (S.18): or

()

v. A person whose position it is necessary to prove in a suit. If suchstatement would be relevant in a suit brought by or against him.

(S.19); or

()

vi. A person to whom a party to the suit expressly referred forinformation in reference to a matter in reference to a matter in

dispute. (S.20)

()

Illustrations (1) A undertakes to collect rents for B.

B sues A for not collection rent due from C to B.

A denies that rent was due from C to B.

A statement by C that owed B rent is an admission, and is relevant

fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.

-


5/56

5

(2)The question is whether a horse sold by A to B is sound A says toB. "Go and ask C, C knows all about it. C's statement is an

admission.

-

According to section (21) of Evidence Act, An admission is relevant ad be

proved against the person who makes it or his representative in interest. It cannot

be proved by or behalf of the person who makes it or representative in interest,

except in three cases:

()

(a) When it is of such a nature that, if the person making it weredead, it would be relevant as between third person under S 32;

()

-

(b)

When it consist of a statement of the existence of any of mind

or body made at or about the time when such state of mind or

body existed and accompanied by conduct rendering its

falsehood improbable;


6/56

6

-

(c) If it is otherwise relevant as an admission.

Illustrations (a) The question between 'A' and 'B' is whether a certain deed is or

is not forged. 'A' affirms that it is genuine, B that is forged 'A'

may prove a statement by 'B' that the deed is genuine and B

may prove a statement by 'A' that the deed is forged; but 'A'

cannot proved a statement by himself that the deed is genuine,

nor can 'B' prove a statement by himself that the deed is

forged.

()


7/56

7

(b)'A' is accused of a crime committed by him at Yangon. He produces aletter written by himself and dated at Maymyo on that day, and bearing

the Maymyo post-mark of that day. The statement in the date of the letter

is admissible, because if 'A' were dead, it would be admissible under

S.32 (2).

()

() ()

(a) 'A' is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to bestolen. He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below

their value. He may prove these statements, though they are

admission because they are explanatory of conduct influenced

by facts in issue.

()

(b)

'A' is accused of fraudulently having in his possession

counterfeit. Coin which he know to be counterfeit. He offers to

prove that he asked a skillful person to examine the coin as he

doubted whether it was counterfeit or not, and that the person


8/56

8

did examine it and told him it was genuine. He may prove

these statements, though they are admission, because they are

explanatory of conduct influenced by fact in issue.

()

In the section (22), Oral admission as to the contents of a document are

not relevant unless.-

(i) the party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitle togive secondary evidence of the contents of such documents or.

(ii) The geniuses of the documents produce in question. ()

The section (23) of Evidence Act, In Civil Case an admission is not

relevant when it is made.-


9/56

9

(i) upon and express condition that evidence of it is not be givenor

(ii) under circumstances from which the court can infer that partiesagreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

()

According to the section (31) of Evidence Act, an admission is not

conclusive proof of evidence admitted but it may operate as an estoopel.

It may be stated that the term "admission as in this as well as of the

proceeding Sections is nothing but a piece of evidence."

()


10/56

10

4.2. Confession The word "confession" has not been defined anywhere in the Act. The rules

regarding the relevancy of confession may state as follows:-

A confession by an accused in irrelevant if it is cause by (1) inducement, (2)

threat or (3) promise. The inducement threat or promise should have (a) a reference

to the change against the accused, (b) produced from a person in authority, and (c)

sufficiently given the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by

making the confession he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal

nature in reference to the proceeding against him. (S.24)

()

If the confession, made by the accused person is voluntary nature, it is

admissible in Evidence. This is the main object of section (24) of Evidence Act.

Sir Jame Stephen has commented on "Confession" The definition of the

term "confession" in Stephen's Digest of the law of Evidence. Article (21) may be


11/56

11

taken as containing the proper meaning of the term as used in the Act. "A

confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with the crime,

stating or suggesting the inference that the commit the crime"

In "Law of Evidence" Sir Arthur Eggar defined" A Confession is an

admission by a person that he committed a crime. Mere admissions of

incriminating facts do not amount to Confessions unless those facts, together with

the inferences which necessarily be dawn these from are sufficient to prove the

offence ".

Meaning of "Confession" can be studied in rulings.

In the Case of "Tan Chit Lye Vs The Union of Myanmar

1

" it was that a

confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all

the fact which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely in criminating a

1 1950. B.L.R (S.C)172


12/56

12

confession. Thus an admission that the accused is the owner of and in recent

possession of knife or revolver which caused a death with no explanation of any

other man's possession, is not confession.

*

-

-

( )

( )

* -- ()


13/56

13

Confession may be divided into judicial and extra judicial.

()

()

Judicial confessions are those which one made before the Magistrate, or in

Court, in the due course of legal proceedings. According to section (24) of

Evidence Act, it is essential that they be made of free will of the party. Subject to

section 164,364 of the criminal procedure Code it is essential that they be with full

knowledge of the nature and consequence of the confessions. According to the

section (80) of Evidence act such kind of confession can be presumed as to the

document produced as record of evidence.

()

() ()

()

Thus confessions are two kinds. Every confession are not admissible in

Evidence. So confessions must be studied whether it is admissible or inadmissible

in evidence.

()


14/56

14

4.2.1 Admissible Confessions According to section (26) of Evidence Act, a confession made by a person

in police custody is not admissible unless it is made in the presence of a

Magistrate.

()

In the custody of a police officer means an accused or suspected person

comes into the hand of a police officer. He is in the absence of clear evidence to

the contrary and no longer at liberty.

*

()

"Maung lay and six V Union of Myanmar 2it was held" As soon as an

accused or spected person come into the hand or a police officer, he is, in the

absence of clear and mistakable of section (26) and (27), Evidence Act"

* -- 2 I Ran 609


15/56

15

**

*** ()

So, confession must be in the presence of a magistrate, while the accused

person is in the custody of a police officer.

A magistrate means, a magistrate who has specially empowered by the

government to record confession and who may be recorded by him in the course of

an inver on at any time before the inqury or trial commences.

In Tun Kha & other Vs The Union of Myanmar1 it was held that. a

confession has been recorded by a 2nd class magistrate who has not been

empowered by the Government to record confession. Such confession is not

admissible in evidence. The magistrate cannot give oral evidence.

**() *** -- 1 1948, B.L.R.195


16/56

16

****

In Ai Htwe and Two Others Vs The Union of Myanmar1 it was held "Where

there is any irregularity in the recording of a confession by a magistrate

empowered record such confession the magistrate himself can be called and

examined as a witness with view to consider whether the confession should or

should not be admitted in spite of the irregularity.

*

**

()

**** -- 1 1957, B.L.R.(H.C) 134* -- ** --


17/56

17

In the case of "The Union of Myanmar V San Min 91, it was decided" The

accused, changed with the offence of dacoity, was brought before the magistrate

for remand. The magistrate asked him whether he had anything to say and the

accused replied that he had committed the offence and had nothing to say against

the remand being granted. The magistrate made a note of this on the remand

application and subsequently gave evidence to the note at the trial. It was held that

the evidence was inadmissible.

**

()

()

In "The Union of Myanmar V Tun Shwe and two other2" also held "section

n 162(2) of the Code does not debar the magistrate who the confession to try the

Case.

*

1 1939.R.L.94** 2 1947. R.L.R.473*


18/56

18

()

In the case of "Maung Nyi and one V The Union of Myanmar1" it was held

that the accused had no mind to make a confession and it was reasonably clear they

did to escape illtreatment which they thought they were bound to confronted with.

It is not in dispute that appellants were taken back after the confession were made

to police custody and they were in the same room when confessions were therefore

not voluntary and were recorded in illegal meaner and no weight should be given

to it. ***

The main object of the above decision is the accused were not taken back to

police custody after the confession.

1 1952.B.L.R.282*** --


19/56

19

According to the section (28) of Evidence Act, a confession is relevant and

admissible in evidence if it is made after the impression case by any such

inducement, threat or promise have been fully removed.

()

()

* ()

Section (28) of Evidence Act is proviso of S (24) Before recording

confession the magistrate is bound to question the accused in order to ascertain

whether it is made of his free will. The magistrate is certified that the confession is

free from undue influence records the confession.

() ()

* --


20/56

20

Section (29)"A confession is not irrelevant simply because it is made-

(i) under a promise of secrecy; or(ii) in consequence of a deception practice upon the accuse: or(iii) when the accused was drunk; or(iv) in answer to question which he need not to have answered: or(v) because the accused was not warned that he was not bound to make

it.

()

Illustration

A was in custody on a charge of murder. B, a fellow prisoner, said to him "I

wish would tell me how you under the boy-pray split". A replied "will you be upon

your oath not mention what I tell you?" B went upon his oath that he would not

tell. A then made a statement. This was not such an inducement to confess. A's

statement was admissible in evidence.


21/56

21

Section (27)

Provided that, when any fact is disposed to as discovered in consequence of

information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of

police officer so much of such information whether it amount to confession or not

as relates distinctly to fact there by discover may be proved.

()

Illustration

The accused when in police custody in connection with some other offence

made a statement to the police the affect that a month previously he had kept a

bomb in a cattle-shed belonging to a friend of his and that he would take it out and

gave it to the police. The accused subsequently took the police to the place, took a

bomb and produced it before the police. The statement which would be admitted in


22/56

22

evidence were those which he stated that the bomb was kept in the cattle-shed and

accused would take it out and hand over to a police but not that portion of the

statement that he had kept the bomb one month previously in his friend; cow-shed.

In the case of Sobika Rahman Vs The Union of Myanmar1 it was held that

section (27) of the Evidence Act is in applicable as a statement alleged to have

been made by the appellant are statements which accompanied the discovery of the

bundle containing the contraband and did not lead to its discovery.

*

1 1952. B.L.E.285 (H.C)* -- ()


23/56

23

()

()

Also in the case of Thu Nge Gyi and Two Vs The Union of Myanmar1 it

was held that persons in custody may point out the objects to a magistrate or

searcher, but the statement which accompany the discovery of such objects are not

admissible in evidence.

**

The court also decided in The Gyaw Aung Union of Myanmar2, the time

when the revolver was actually pointed out or after the revolver was pointed out

such as statement is inadmissible in evidence.

***

This section (27) of Evidence Act is founded on the principle that if the

confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of a fact it may be

presumed to be use and not to have been exacted. It comes into operation only-

(1)

when certain facts are disposed to as discovered in consequence of

information received from an accused person in police custody; and

1 1946.B.L.R.229** 2 1948. B.L.R. 665*** -- /


24/56

24

(2) the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered.()

*

()

Thus a confession is relevant and admissible in evidence-

(1) if it is made after the impression cause by any such inducement ,threat or promise has been fully removed. (S.28)

(2) if it is not made to a police officer (S.25) ; or(3) if it is made in the presence of a magistrate when the accuse is in the

custody of a police officer.(S.26)

* --


25/56

25

4.2.2 In section (24) of Evidence Act it is mentioned that, a confession is

irrelevant if it is obtained by inducement threat or promise such inducement, threat

or promise must have reference to the charge must proceed from a person of

authority and must be sufficient to give an accused grounds for supposing that by

making it he would gain an advantage or avoid on evil of a temporal nature in

reference to the proceed against him. So, such kinds of confessions within the

scope of section (24) are inadmissible in evidence.

()

The words "inducement" and "threat" had not been defined anywhere in the

Evidence Act. It is depended upon the opinion of magistrate. It may be included

either physical or mental torture.


26/56

26

*

()

So it is clear that confession obtained by inducement, threat or promise is

irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence. An accused person made a confession

because person of authority made the inducement threat and promise to an

accused's wife or relative. Such kind of confession is also inadmissible in evidence.

Reference to the words "person in authority" in section (24) of evidence Act,

it was held the case of "Maung Tin Shwe and one V The Union of Myanmar1"

decided" A too restrictive meaning should not be placed on the words" Person in

authority" occurring in S 24 of the Evidence Act. "Aboard meaning should be

given to the form and the test would seem to be whether the person or individual

concerned had any concern or interest in the mather under inquiry and whether he

* -- 1 1960.B.L.R (H-C) 125


27/56

27

had authority to interface and it so he would certainly come within the definition of

"a person in authority .

()

**

()

Also in the case of "Maung Tun Tin V Union of Myanmar1, the Court made

a decision.

*** ()

* Reference to the words "Appears to the Court: in section (24) of Evidence

Act, it was decided in Union of Myanmar V Hla Maung2 as follow:

A confession would not be relevant under section (24) it the making of it

appears to the court to have been cause by inducement, threat, etc; The phrase

"appears" show that something less than positive proof in the nature of a well

** -- ()1 1965.B.L.R 185*** -- * /2 1946.B.L.R 102


28/56

28

grounded conjecture or probability though no a more possibility that the confession

is not voluntary, is sufficient.

Also decided in " U Saw and Nine others Vs The Union of Myanmar1 the

words" appears to the court" in section (24) of Evidence Act is something less than

positive proof, that the confession is not voluntary.

()

** ()

***

Therefore the scope of section (24) of Evidence Act is that a confession is

irrelevant and inadmissible in evidence if it is not voluntary.

() ()

1 1965.B.L.R 185** -- - *** -- /


29/56

29

"In Daw San Yi and on V The Union of Myanmar1 " it was held Confession

before an exercise officer is no long admissible".

*

In the case of Sobika Rahaman V The Union of Myanmar2 the court decide

"A statement which admits a substantial portion of the facts which constitute the

offence with which the appellant was charged is a confession and having been

made to the police is inadmissible in evidence under section (25) of the Evidence

Act.

**

The object of this section (25) of evidence Act is to prevent the practice for

torture by the police for the purpose of extracting confessions from accused

persons.Under this section no confession made to the police officer is admissible

against the accused.

()

1 1952 B.L.R (H.C)385* -- 2 1985. B.L.R P: 1** --


30/56

30

()

Section (25) excluded only a confession made to the police officer but

admission.

For example: - An accused was charged with the offence belonging to a gang of

person associated the purpose of habitually dacoit. During the police enquiry he

had made a statement to an inspector of police that a bundle of ammunition

produced by him was given to him by two other accused who were charged with

him as being members of the gang. It was held that though that statement was self

exculpatory it was in admissible in evidence under section (25) of Evidence Act

as it amount to an admission of an incriminating circumstance.

-

()

()

On studying the above rulings to admit the confession in evidence it is

essential that


31/56

31

-

(1) the court, recording the confession, believes, the confession made bythe accused is voluntary.

()

(2) The confession is not made to the police officer.() (3) The confession is made in the presence of Magistrate when the

accused is in the custody of a police officer.

()

(4) The confession was recorded under sections 164, 364 of Griminalprocedure Code.

() () ()

(5) any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of informationreceived from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a

police officer.

()


32/56

32

4.2.3 Value of Confessions In the section (30) of Evidence Act it is mentioned that when more persons

than one are jointly tried for an offence and one of them makes a confession

against himself and some other of which persons the confession may be taken into

consideration against such persons as well as against the person making it.

()

Explanation "Offence" as used in this section, includes the abatment of or

attempts to commit, the offence-

-

Illustrations

(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said-"B and I murdered C" The court may consider the effect of this

confession as against B.

()


33/56

33

(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that Cwas murdered by A and B, and that B said-

This statement may not be taken into consideration by the court

against A, as B is not jointly tried.

()

Under section (30) of Evidence Act if the court admit the confession as a

relevant and admissible evidence, the court may taken into consideration against-

(1) the person who make the confession,(2) and against other person is tried jointly

()

-

()

()


34/56

34

(1) The confession may prove against the person who makes it.

The evident values of confession use against an accused person can be

studied ruling as follow: -

In Union of Myanmar v Aung Tun (a) Aung Myint it was held that where

there is no other evidence to show affirmatively that any portion of the exculpatory

element in a confession is else the court must accept or reject the confession as a

whole and cannot accept only the inempatory element while rejecting the

exculpatory element as in credible.

*

**

* -- ()** -- ()


35/56

35

***

**

Therefore the confession may be taken into consideration against the person

making it.

*** -- ( )** --


36/56

36

2. Confession may prove against Co-accused

Under section (30) of Evidence Act confession may prove against co-

accused according to the following rules.

()

a. Accused persons are tried jointly. b. Accused persons are tried for the same offence.

c.Confessions may be taken into consideration against co-accused making

the confession.

d. The confession is legally proved.

e.Joint trial is legal.

Under section (30) of Evidence Act the word "For the same offence" means

an offence comes under the same legal definition i.e under the same section of law.

That is to say same substantive offence or same specification offence. When two


37/56

37

persons are accused of an offence of the same definition arising of a single

transaction, the confession of one may be used against other.

()

- ()()

( )

() ( )

A and B were tried together under See 239 of the Penal Code on a charge of

delivering to another counterfeit at the time the possessed of them. A confessed

that he had got the coins from B and had passed them to several person at his

request. It was held that a confession of A was relevant against B.

()

- () ()

()

Under section (30) the words "For the same offence" is the same meaning of

"identical offence".


38/56

38

In the case of Maung Po Tod V Union of Myanmar 1"it was held "House

breaking and theft and receving the property stolen at the theft , are distinct

offences, under section n 30 of Evidence Act and the confession of one co-accused

cannot be taken into consideration as against other"

2

Under section (30) of Evidence Act, the world tried jointly "mean" legally

tried jointly".

In the case of Azin- Ud Din Vs Union of Myanmar3 it was held "two

persons accused of an offence cannot be tried together if the prosecution cases

against them multually exclusive. The words accused of the same offence in

section (2.3.9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure imply that the co-accused have

acted in concert of association.

4

()

In Aswar Khan Vs The Union of Myanmar5 the court made a decision as

follow. "A Joint trial should not have been held when the prosecution case against

1 1901-L.U.B P.1582 (1910-1913) I.U.B.R. 1583 7.L.B.R 684 7.L.B.R. 685 1952.B.L.R (H.C) 311


39/56

39

two persons mutually exclusive, or when the two threw the blame upon each

other".

*

In the case of "U Sein Bwint V U Ba Than1 it was held" that there is no

provisions of law by which the said two complaints could be amalgamated and the

accused mentioned therein tried together in the same case, and that the proceeding

was void ab ignition.

** --

--

Under section (30) of Evidence Act, a confession of an accused may be

taken into consideration against other accused persons. The word "may be taken,

into consideration" do not mean that confession alone form the basis of a

conviction. The confession can be used to corroborate the others evidence against

the other accused.

* -- ()1 1958.B.L.R (H.C) 525** --


40/56

40

()

In the case of Khaw Taw and One Vs The Union of Myanmar1 it was held

"The confession of a coaccused is not specific evidence in the sense that

conviction on that confession alone cannot stand. If there is other relevant evidence

tending to prove the guilt of he accused the confession of co accused may be

taken into consideration along with the said evidence as lending assurance to it".

**

In Ba Pe and One V Union of Myanmar2 it was held "the confession of a co-

accused is not on he same footing as testing mony of an approver which is

substanctive in the sense that conviction can be based on it alone under S (133) of

1 1948.B,L.R 310 (H.C)** -- ()2 1950.B.L.R (H.C) 178


41/56

41

Evidence Act. If there be no prime facie evidence against an accused person,

confession of a co-accused should be excluded It cannot be used to fill up the gap

in the evidence of the prosecution.

***

****

The Union of Myanmar Vs Ah Hla (a) Maung Hla Two Other,1 it was held

"The confession of co accused is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as

defined in S.3. and cannot therefore be made the foundation of a conviction, that it

can only be used in support of other evidence that the proper way is , first to

marshall the evidence against the accused person excluding the confession of his

co-accused altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed a

conviction could be based on it , that if it is so capable of belief independently of

the confession of the co-accused, it would be unnecessary to call the confession in

aid but that there may be cases where the judge is not prepared to act on the other

*** -- ()**** -- ()1 1958,B.L.R (H.C) 29


42/56

42

evidence as it stands even through, it believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a

conviction and that it is in such a case that a Judge may call in aid the confession

of the co-accused and used it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus

fortify himself in believing what without the and of the confession he would not be

prepared to accept."

***** -

***** -- ()


43/56

43

Therefore according to above rulings a confession can be used to

corroborate the others evidence against the other accused.

4.2.4 Retracted Confession An accused person had made a confession before Magistrate. When he was

tried the caused stated that the confession is not voluntary. He had confessed but

the confession was obtained by inducement, threat or promise. Such kind of

confession is called retracted confession.

There is no definition in Evidence Act and the Code of Criminal Procedure

that which and of retracted confession is admissible or inadmissible in evidence.

Therefore by studying the following rulings the use retracted confession and

stability of retracted confession can be found.


44/56

44

In the case of "the Union of Myanmar V Ah Hla (a) Maung Hla and two

others1 it was decided as follow:-

"An uncorroborated retracted confession can sustain a conviction the

ordinary rule of prudence is the some kind of corroboration is necessary unless the

circumstances are exceptional"

It was also held "A confession retracted or not may be taken into

consideration against the person jointly tried with the confessing accused for the

same offence.

*

**

1 1958, B .L .R (H.C) 29* -- ()** -- ()


45/56

45


46/56

46

*

**

* -- ** / () () ()


47/56

47

On studying the above ruling when confession is retracted, the confession is

not cancelled. The effect or confession of the retraction is to put the court into

inquiry as to its value, its voluntary character and the probability of at being true. A

retracted confession, if prove to be voluntarily made can be acted along with the

other evidence in the case and there is not rule of law that a retracted confession

must be supported by independent reliable evidence corroboration it in material

particulars. There to be made of such a confession is a matter of proof rather than

of law.

4.3 STATEMETNS TO A POLICE OFFICER In order to make a judgment the Court entirely depends upon evidence. An

investigating police officer investigates an offence under the provisions of law

contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 162 Criminal Procedure Code

applies to the statement made police officer in the course of investigation. Under

Section (202) of the Code of Criminal Procedure a Magistrate directs a police

officer to investigate into the truth or falsehood of a complaint, the report of such

officer well as the statements of the personal examined by his on which his report

is based from part of the record of the case. The police officer may reduce into


48/56

48

writing any statement made to him in the course of examination. Under Section

(24) of the Evidence Act, no inducement, threat or promise shall be offered cause

to person making the statement under section (162) of Criminal Procedure Code no

statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of investigation

shall be signed by person making it.

()

()

**

** () ()


49/56

49

Statement to a police officer made used by the accused to contradict a

prosecution witness under section (145) of the Evidence Act in the market of the

statements is called as witness for the prosecution.

When any part of such statement is so used any part there of may also be

used by the prosecution witness the permission of the court in the re-examination

of such witness only the purpose of explaining nay matte referred to in his cross-

examination.

If the person making such statement is dead or cannot be found the

prosecution may make use of such statement as a dying declaration under section

(32) of the Evidence Act.

In the case of Maung Sein Tun and one V The Union of Myanmar

1

it was

held as follows ; "Every omission does not amount" to contradiction the very

word" contradict" can note to speak "against" or "gainsay".

1 1956, B. L .R (H.C) 115


50/56

50

*

In the case of Maung Oo Myint V the Union of Myanmar2 it was held as

follow :- "that under proviso to S 162 (1) "Cr.P.C., both the defence and the

prosecution one entitled to use the statement of a witness to the police, if duty

proved, for the purpose of contradicting such witness in the manner provided by S

(145) of the Evidence Act or for the purpose of impeachment the credit of such

witness in the manner provided S (155) of Evidence Act".

**

()

()

() ()

**

* -- ()2 1958, B. L .R (S.C) 513** -- ()**, -- ()


51/56

51

***

()

()

*** -- ()


52/56

52

*

()

In the case of Daw Kha Lay Ma V The Union of Myanmar4 the Court made

a decision "if a witness is proved to have made a statement to the police, though

unsworn in distince conflict with his evidence on oath his testimony is negligible.

The principal is that a person who made in consistent statement is unreliable and

his evidence should be igonored.

* -- ()4 1962, B. L .R. 280


53/56

53

*

When a person makes a statement to the police and denies the same in the

witness-box such statement is inadmissible either in favour of or against him".

Though a statement is made to the police officer, any fact in the statement is

disposed to discover in consequence of information received from an accused who

made a statement under section (27) of Evidence Act the statement can be used

against the accused. The whole of the statement of the accused is, therefore not

admissible under section (27) of Evidence Act but only that portion of it which

relates distinctly to the fact discovered.

()

()

()

Therefore statement to a police offered is inadmissible in evidence. But it

may used to condradict a prosecution witness under S (45) of Evidence Act, to

impeach the credit of witness in the manner provided in section (155) of Evidence

Act.

* -- ( )


54/56

54

()

()

()


55/56

55

Key TermAdmission

Confession

Counterfeit

Statement

Inducement

Threat

Promise

Advantage Evil

Offence

co-accused

identical offence

Person in Authority

Judicial Confession

Extra Judicial Confession

Same Offence

Same transaction


56/56

56

Assignment Questions1. What is a "confession"? When is it admissible and when is it inadmissible in

evidence?

2. Explain the terms 'admission'. What are the grounds for a person to makeadmission?

3. When is a confession admissible in evidence?4. Explain the value of confession.5. When is a statement to a police officer admissible in evidence?6. When can a confession of accused person be used against an accused person

making the confession and co-accused?

Short Questions1. What is a "confession"?2. Explain the term 'admission'.3. Who can make admission?4. Describe the kinds of confession.

Documents

CHAPTER 4(Evidence)New1