Code of Criminal Procedure

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P.

PROJECT TITLE : Interviewing, Questioning And Interrogation - Difference

SUBJECT : Code Of Criminal Procedure

NAME OF THE FACULTY : Ms. Soma Battacharjya

Name of the Candidate : Palla. Harini Devi

Roll No. : 20LLB074
Semester : 4th

1
Code of Criminal Procedure

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to offer my earnest gratitude to my companions and relationship for supporting
me all through the fulfillment of this examination paper. In the first place, I wish to offer my
gratitude to my Professor Ms. Soma Battacharjya, for her ingenuity, clever comments,
steady information, sensible direction and relentless contemplations that have helped me
enormously reliably in my assessment and making out of this recommendation. Her experience
and master inclination in Criminal Procedural Law has enabled me to complete this paper
successfully. Without her assistance and course, this endeavor could never have been possible.
I couldn't have imagined having an unrivalled overseer in my audit. Further I might want to
thank the library staff of Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University for continually
helping the paper toward finish by giving e-library access. Ultimately, I would sincerely offer
my thanks towards my folks who are strong and empowering.

2
Code of Criminal Procedure

SYNOPSIS

Introduction

Police investigations may be dynamic, with events unfolding and evidence revealing
itself in unanticipated ways. This assumption also applies to suspect interviewing,
questioning, and interrogation. At various phases of the investigation, participants in a
criminal occurrence may be named as suspects. To properly secure and manage
statement evidence obtained during interactions with suspects or possible suspects,
investigators must understand the actions that should be taken at each stage, while
keeping in mind that the terms interviewing, questioning, and interrogating refer to
distinct stages in the process of eliciting verbal responses from a suspect or possible
suspect. However, each step is unique in terms of when and how data collection may
and should occur. The investigator must clarify the distinctions between these three
phases in his or her head since they will be interviewing, questioning, and eventually
interrogating a suspect. When this process happens, the investigator must be aware of
the changing circumstances and take necessary steps at the right time to ensure that any
confession gained is admissible at trial.

Objective Of The Study

• To analyse the meaning, object and intent of – Interviewing, Questioning and

Interrogation
• To inquire into the concrete differences between information gathering techniques that
are incorporated by investigating agencies.

Research Question

Whether there is any substantial difference between the objective of Interviewing,

Questioning and Interrogation as a methods of information gathering techniques ?

Research Methodology
This is a doctrinal method of research. The study is a explanatory type of study.

4
Code of Criminal Procedure

a. Primary Sources : Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC),1973; The Psychology of

Interrogations and Confessions by Gisli H. Gudjonsson; Ratanlal And Dhirajlal’s The
Code Of Criminal Procedure.
b. Secondary Sources : Articles, Hein Online, E-journals, JSTOR, West Law, etc.

Bluebook 19th edition style of citation is used in this paper.

Type Of Study
This study is a basic type of research.

Review Of Literature
1. Geiselman and Fisher (1995) analysed the investigative process of how victims
and witnesses of a crime are investigated and questioned by the police agency. The
study tries to draw a comparison between standard police interview and hypnosis
interview. Further, it was concluded that cognitive form of interview is the most
effective way to elicit information from eyewitness and victims. The method of
interview victims in distress and perplexed eyewitnesses is relevant to this study.
2. Roscoe Pound (1934) analysed the laws that are in place for interrogation of
accused and suspects of crime and build the narrative against third-degree
interrogative methods. The author further examined Roman Law, English Law and
American Law that stipulate the scope of interrogation as a method of investigation.
3. Triano-López (2015) analysed the constitutional validity of Pre-Trail
investigation. However this paper is not entirely relevant to the present study as it
is only contributing towards critical analysis the concept of questioning as a
technique for information gathering.

Scope And Limitation Of The Study

The present paper portrays a holistic view on cardinal information gathering techniques
and the differences between them. Further the scope of the paper is limited to the title.

Significance Of The Study

The significance of the study is to initially study the the meaning and difference
between interview, questioning and interrogation.

5
Code of Criminal Procedure

Secondly, to understand and analyse the investigative techniques and their significance
on the credibility of the information or evidence gathered
Thirdly, to analyse the the different stages of information gathering that are devised in
police investigation.

Research Design
• In chapter [1] of the project
• In chapter [2] of the project,
• In chapter [3] of the project,
• In chapter [4] of the project,

Tentative Chapterization

1. Prelude
2. Interviewing
2.1 Meaning and Scope
2.2 Process and Preliminaries
2.3 Subject and Manner
3. Questioning
3.1 Meaning and Scope
3.2 Process and Preliminaries
3.3 Subject and Manner
4. Interrogation
4.1 Meaning and Scope
4.2 Process and Preliminaries
4.3 Subject and Manner
5. The Cardinal Differences
6. Conclusion
7. Bibliography

6
Code of Criminal Procedure

1. PRELUDE

“Understanding the correct processes and legal parameters for interviewing, questioning, and
interrogation, can make the difference between having a suspect’s confession accepted as
evidence by the court or not.”1

Interviewing, questioning, and interrogation procedures used in contemporary police are

systematic, objective, and moral. They are directed on establishing the truth, not toward
obtaining a confession to a crime. This is in stark contrast to former eras of policing, when
"third degree" practises included threats, intimidation, extortion, and sometimes physical
assault. Fortunately, in the case of D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal2 (1997), these "third
degree" procedures were recognised as unconstitutional police practises that resulted in coerced
confessions and wrongful convictions, where people were sometimes unjustly convicted and
imprisoned.

While there has been a major shift towards more objective and ethical techniques, the courts
continue to be attentive in their evaluation of the manner in which police interview, question,
and interrogate detainees during criminal investigations and witnesses during inquiries. The
courts require police to maintain high standards by using techniques that are sensitive to the
rights of the accused and designed to limit any physical or mental distress that can result in a
false confession being obtained. Further the police should bear in mind the mental and
psychological state of the eyewitnesses whose testimony would be a ver crucial element in
determining the commission of the crime. When it comes to achieving these expectations,
suspect questioning and interrogation may be difficult, and many police departments employ
trained interrogators and polygraph operators who are responsible for conducting suspect
interrogation in important criminal cases.

Every investigation, however, does not meet the criteria for being classified as a big case, and
frontline police detectives are faced with the difficult duty of interviewing, questioning, and
interrogating potential suspects on a regular basis. The difficulty for police is that improper

1
2

7
Code of Criminal Procedure

interviewing, questioning, or interrogation procedures may lead to a suspect's confession being

compromised, which can jeopardise the investigation and the outcome of the investigation. It
is expected from the police investigating agency to maintain proper decorum while conducting
interview, interrogation and questioning while retaining the stoic character and manner of
criminal investigation. Understanding the proper procedures and legal constraints may make
the difference between a suspect's confession being accepted as evidence in court and being
rejected by the court.

There usually will be a gradual progression from interview to questioning to investigation –

and this progression should not be forced or coerced rather should be very organic and smooth.
Testimonies and confessions collected during this stage of the investigation are cardinal to trial
and is often used to prove or discredit the offence committed. When conducting investigation
through the process of interview, interrogation or questioning, the investigators have a
responsibility to use the most effective techniques available while also safeguarding the rights
and dignity of those being examined. Coercive methods damage investigations, derail the goal
of obtaining correct information, and may constitute human rights violations, thus investigating
agency have an obligation to avoid them.