The Bombay High Court has held that a confessional statement made by an accused to a doctor while in police custody is inadmissible in evidence, reiterating that such statements cannot be relied upon to sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act in the absence of compliance with the safeguards under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Court was hearing criminal appeals challenging a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and provisions of the Indian Penal Code, where the trial court had relied, inter alia, on a statement made by the accused to the Medical Officer during medical examination admitting to sexual intercourse with the victim.

A Division Bench of Justice Sandipkumar C. More and Justice Abasaheb D. Shinde observed: “… the appellant/accused was admittedly in police custody when he gave a history of the incident to the doctor. The history given by the appellant/accused in the instant case was regarding the admission of his guilt of committing forcible sexual intercourse with the victim. The appellant had specifically narrated to the Medical Officer on which dates he performed the alleged criminal act with the victim. Thus, when the aforesaid admission of the appellant/accused about his guilt was relating to the criminal act alleged against him, it can certainly be considered as ‘confession’, and therefore, it is subject to restrictions under Sections 24 to 26 of the Indian Evidence Act”.

The Court accordingly held that “… even though statement was made to a doctor and not to a police officer, it cannot be held that it is exempted from the bar of Section 26 of the Evidence Act, …considering these aspects we are of the opinion that the statement made by appellant/accused before the Medical Officer (PW-8) while giving history before his medical examination, cannot be treated as admission of his guilt as held by the learned trial Judge, since the said statement is clearly inadmissible in the evidence”.

Advocate Dhanraj S. Ingole appeared for the appellant; S.P. Sonpawale, APP, Advocate A.S. Usmanpurkar appeared for the respondents.

Background

The case arose from allegations that the accused had taken a minor girl away and committed sexual intercourse with her under the pretext of marriage. The trial court convicted the accused under provisions of the IPC and the POCSO Act, relying upon the testimony of the victim as well as a statement made by the accused to the Medical Officer during his medical examination.

The Medical Officer deposed that the accused, while giving history, had admitted to having sexual intercourse with the victim on specific dates, and this was treated by the trial court as corroborative evidence establishing guilt.

Aggrieved, the accused challenged the conviction, contending that such a statement was inadmissible in evidence, being a confession made while in police custody.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the Court examined the evidentiary value of the statement made by the accused to the Medical Officer during medical examination. It noted that the accused was admittedly in police custody at the time when such a statement was made.

The Court observed that the statement given by the accused was not a mere admission of a collateral fact, but a direct acknowledgement of the commission of the alleged criminal act. In this context, it held that “the history given by the appellant… was regarding admission of his guilt of committing… the criminal act,” thereby bringing it within the ambit of a confessional statement.

Referring to Sections 24 to 26 of the Evidence Act, the Court reiterated the settled distinction between admissions and confessions, noting that while admissions may be admissible, confessions are subject to strict statutory safeguards.

The Court emphasised that Section 26 specifically bars confessions made by a person while in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. It held that “there is nothing on record to show that the history was given… in the immediate presence of Magistrate,” thereby attracting the statutory bar.

Significantly, the Court clarified that the bar under Section 26 is not limited to confessions made to police officers alone, and extends to confessions made to any person while in police custody. It observed that “even though a statement was made to a doctor and not to a police officer, it cannot be held that it is exempted from the bar of Section 26,” rejecting the contrary reasoning of the trial court.

The Court further relied upon precedents holding that confessional statements made to doctors in police custody are inadmissible, as permitting such statements would defeat the very purpose of the statutory safeguards. On this basis, the Court held that the trial court had erred in treating the statement as admissible evidence of guilt and relying upon it to convict the accused.

The Court then proceeded to examine the remaining evidence on record, including the testimony of the victim and medical evidence, and found that there was no corroborative material establishing penetrative sexual assault.

It noted that the medical evidence did not reveal injuries or signs of sexual intercourse, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence of rape or aggravated penetrative sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the Court held that the evidence on record did indicate physical contact with sexual intent, thereby attracting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

Conclusion

The Court held that the confessional statement made by the accused to the Medical Officer while in police custody was inadmissible in evidence and could not be relied upon to sustain a conviction for the alleged offence.

Accordingly, the conviction of the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the relevant provisions of the IPC was set aside, and he was acquitted of those offences. However, considering the evidence on record indicating physical contact with sexual intent, the Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for five years.

The appeal filed by the accused was partly allowed, while the appeal filed by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence was dismissed.

Cause Title: Amol Jayram Landge v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:18109)

Click here to read/download Judgment


Tags: