Will Krishna’s alleged confession to the CBI about “his role in the murders” shape up as evidence or would it remain as unsubstantiated as the Noida Police’s similar claims about Dr. Rajesh Talwar some time back?
CBI Joint Director Arun Kumar on Tuesday said Krishna has confessed. The agency told a Ghaziabad court they had recorded his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC wherein he has admitted he was involved in the murder “along with several other persons”. Kumar said the confession “is part of investigation”.
The statement raised more questions than it answered. Like what had Krishna confessed, what was the motive, what role did Dr Rajesh Talwar play.
In its current form and scope, the alleged confession made under Section 161 does not hold any ground in the court, said legal experts. In fact, it is nothing more than mere conjecture until it helps the CBI recover some evidence like the murder weapon.
“Confession before the police is not admissible in court. The person is in full right to refute in court whatever the police have said about his confession. But if the police can recover important evidence or make some disclosure based on the confession, then it can be used against the accused,” said criminal advocate Tarun Goomber.
Confessions made under Section 164 of the CrPC are recorded in front of a magistrate and are significantly distinct from those made under Section 161 (the one made by Krishna). These confessions can be used as evidence and the police do not need to rely on recovery.
Investigating agencies at times wrongly tell the court that an accused confessed so they get him on remand to interrogate him, said legal experts. “How can you be sure the police haven’t cooked up the story about the confession when the accused is in their custody? These false claims are eventually exposed in courts,” said criminal lawyer R.K. Naseem.
Recovery then becomes the key element if the CBI’s fresh claims were to hold any ground in nailing the killers.