◆ SpookStack

—§— in the eyes of suspects for the production of confessions. Shephen, in his History of Criminal Law in England, Vol. [. p. 442, mentions this practice: ‘During the discussions which took place on the Inclian Code of Criminal Procedure in 1872 some observations were made on the reasons which occasionally lead native police officers to apply torture to prisoners. An experi- enced civil officer observed, ‘There is a great deal of laziness in it. It is far pleasanter to sit comfortably in the shade rubbing red pepper into a poor devil's eyes than to go about in the sun hunting up evicence.,’ ”’ Sections 25 and 26, born out of those practices. bar all confessions which fall within them terms—whether or not “yoluntary.” They are per se rules reflecting bitter experience with the tactics of the Indian police under British rule. Recent proposals to change the Indian Evidence law have been rejected despite claiins of unproved police practices: . “Tt must be conceded that in India. the police force as a whole is not. even today regarded as a friend of the citizen. This is natural as the faets and circumstances of its creation . , . cannot be forgotten so soon, ... Tn order that the eitizen in this country should come to look upon the Indian polieeman in the same manner fas the Englishman regards the English policeman] the police force in the country will have for many years to conform to the principles and practice which have gov- erned the conduct of the British Police. Such a course of conduct alone can win for them the confidence and esteem of the public.” * In practice, these rules operate strictly. As stated, section 26 validates only confessions made in the pres- cnee of a magistrate. But the influence of section 25— which exclude all confessions made to a police offi- cer—is great; the Indian courts require a period of “reflection” during which the accused must be isolated 7H Law Commission of India, Rep't No. 14, Reform of Tudicial Administration 747 (1958), i