Confessions made during police custody cannot be used as a evidence because no one is there to proof that the confession id the real truth or not it can also be given by taking money from anyone so it  has been banned in court rather.

Introduction:
The rule that confessions made during police custody cannot be used as evidence against the accused is based on the principle of protecting the rights of the accused and ensuring a fair trial. It is a crucial safeguard in criminal justice systems around the world, including many legal systems that follow the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Presumption of Innocence:
The rule is rooted in the fundamental principle of the presumption of innocence, which holds that an accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle places the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish guilt. Allowing confessions obtained in police custody as evidence could potentially undermine this presumption by creating a bias against the accused.

Coercion and Duress:
One of the primary reasons for excluding confessions obtained during police custody is the concern about the potential for coercion or duress. The power dynamics between law enforcement and individuals in custody can be highly imbalanced, leading to situations where suspects may feel pressured, intimidated, or coerced into making false confessions. By excluding such confessions, the legal system aims to prevent the use of unreliable or involuntary statements.

Protecting Against Mistakes:
Confessions made during police custody can be vulnerable to mistakes, particularly in cases where suspects are mentally impaired, intellectually disabled, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. These individuals may not fully comprehend their rights or the consequences of their statements. Excluding such confessions helps protect against potential miscarriages of justice that could result from unreliable or inaccurate information.

Ensuring a Fair Trial:
Allowing confessions made during police custody as evidence could potentially create an unfair advantage for the prosecution. It may encourage law enforcement to focus primarily on obtaining confessions rather than conducting a thorough investigation. By excluding such confessions, the legal system encourages the collection of more reliable evidence, ensuring a fairer trial where guilt or innocence is determined based on a broader range of evidence.

Conclusion:
The rule that confessions made during police custody cannot be used as evidence against the accused is an essential safeguard in the criminal justice system. It upholds the presumption of innocence, protects against coercion and duress, prevents mistakes, and ensures a fair trial. This rule is designed to strike a balance between the interests of law enforcement and the protection of individuals' rights, safeguarding the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice process.