However, to ensure that an accused who cries that the statement sought to be tendered by the prosecution was made under undue influence is actually true, and not an attempt to take advantage of the law, it has become a practice in our criminal proceedings that in a situation like that, a thorough and independent probe on whether or not the statement was made mind-free, known as trial within trial (also called mini-trial) is conducted by the court.
Where such is not the case, upon trial, the involuntarily statement ought not to be admitted into evidence and conviction on such statement made under duress is enough ground for appeal and to quash that conviction.
These statutes expect, and so stipulate, that every statement made by a suspect must be voluntarily and bore of free will. These statutes all, in the ultimate knowledge of their draftsmen, provide for the safeguard of a suspect’s rights while under lawful custody when making a statement. These statutes range from The Constitution down to the various Criminal Procedural Legislations, and The Evidence Act. In order to ensure that a suspect, whom under the law is still considered innocent, is not incriminated by a desperate law enforcement officer into forcefully or unwillingly accepting and admitting to a crime he did not commit, the provisions of some statutes have stipulated rules of extracting the confessional statement of every suspect.
0 kommentar(er)
