Respected sir...

It is clearly mentioned in article 20-3 of indian constitution that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself ...So it's all upto him weather his disclose in front of media or not...

Thanku

Conductor must have confessed to the crime before media as he was subject to torture by the police while in police custody

Conductor must have come to the conclusion that only way out of his misery was to confess that he murdered the boy

In order to avoid the unrest probably the police framed the conductor as the culprit. This was basically done to overcome the pressure of media, parents and the locals.

That happens to be my advise, might be that there was some other reason.

Regards

I am not sure what exaxctly asking from us and that too for the purpose of wrtijgna script.

An accused person is often made to make statements beofre the media to dissuade hostile public mood.

However confessions made beofre the Police and repeated beofre the media has no evidentiary value at all.

However this often staged to pacify the public nager and nothing else.

Hi

We can only make presumptions about the actual murdrer of pardum.

About conductor also there can be many things behind the confession in front of Police and media(although confession in front of Police donot have evidentiary value)

-He must have been tortured by police to make him confess the crime in order to avoid the pressure of media and public.

-Now that CBI have presented a new accused of matter and that too with a totally different motive the matter about the confession of conductor should also be investigated by some competent authority of High level in order to fill up the holes in the system of justice in India.

Human Rights Commission should step forward and demand an enquiry for the conductor's confession or torture (which ever is true)

Rest let's wait and watch

I am of opinion that this case will also have a end like another media hiked case of Arushi murder

Too many stories and nothing confirmed till date. Thank You

First of all you need to understand section 24 of indian evidence act, it says any statement given before police is not sustainable in court. Court always grant bail by measuring all facts of the case. Nobody was in support of that driver so he sought media as his big supporter. It is clear cut that if police investigation would have been fair then what was the need of CBI?

Dear Querist

the statement/confessional statement of the person who is in custody of police is not admissible in the eyes of Law as per section 26 of Indian Evidence Act-1872.

26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him

No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate,17 shall be proved as against such person.

Explanation- In this section "Magistrate" does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or else where, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the power of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882

Due to save himself from the third degree torture of police, the accused accept all the thing before the police because either he know or don't about the above noted section or law, but it is common that people know that any statement/confession made by a person who is in the custody of police is not admissible hence nothing can be used against him if he stated before the police, media or any other person except the magistrate while he is in custody of police.

Feel Free to call

Hello sir, as nothing can be said precisely.. It is not only that he confessed before media , there were statements before magistrate of two child witnesses from the school , where they saw Pradyuman entering the toilet when Ashok was still inside the toilet .. If juvenile had murdered , Pradyuman why Ashok did not caught him there in toilet .. Secondly , in only a time spam of 3 minutes , the juvenile was seen crossing the cctv in corridor and coming back .. In a such a short time how a juvenile can , commit such a brutal murder , without getting a single spot of blood on his cloths , and after it giving his exam on the same day .. There were no behavioural changes that was seen on the juvenile that day .. No sense of fear in his face .. No previous violence history in school where he is studying for 8 years .. Most importantly there was no parents meeting for next 2 months , the motive framed by the CBI .. 2) what I see being a lawyer from my point of perspective , without questioning CBI investigation or being biased , I feel that if Ashok was charged with murder , then the Ryan school managment would have been guilty too as it was a lapse of thier security and managment .. The school staff toilets cannot be same as those of children as per CBSE rules .. Therefore a juvenile is being framed..

Sir please note anything confessed before police is not admissible in court of law confessions are admissible only if it is made in front of magistrate

This is a legal platform for answering the legal questions or questions where law is involved.

As a writer you may go by guesses whereas the lawyer cannot make any wild guess or predictions as to what would have made the conductor to confess before the public or media ?

As far as the main subject is concerned, any opinion given at this stage will not be appreciable especially when the matter is still subjudice.

This is purely my opinion, there will be many lawyers here in this forum who would willing to answer to your query to the extent of their knowledge in it

statement to police is not admissible, and even in public it has no credence, it was under threat that can only be assume, and has no credibility whatever he says, except he agrees to court while trail.

Court don't even give oata of heed to such media post whether printed/audio/video.

Remand of accused is order to elicit the truth which in actual used by police to torture accused to accept the guilt whether he is or not.