Table of Content

1. Introduction

2. Meaning and Definition of Confession.

3. Admissions and Confessions.

4. Category of Confessions.

5. Relevancy of the Confessions.

6. Related Case-study

7. Conclusion
 INTRODUCTION
The evidence law is one of the most important and inalienable law from the justice
delivery system, which is procedural in nature.

It is used mostly in the country, as it is procedural in nature, which naturally applies

several more times in comparison to the substantive laws.

It is the one of the important legal tools which fastens and rectifies the justice
dispensation system.

In context of India, the provisions which deal with the evidences are summed up and
compiled in an act, named as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which has eleven chapters
and 167 sections in total, which origin can be traced back in the colonial India.

It has been amended several times, as per the need of the progressive society and the
legal-necessity.

The ‘confession’ is covered under the Chapter- II (the relevancy of facts) under the
heading of ‘admissions’ from sections 24 to 30.

Certain discretions and rights are also mentioned under the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, regarding the confession, because it is mainly the subject matter of criminal
procedures.

Confession has been nowhere clearly defined in the act, but the act accepts it as a species
of the admissions. It is always self-harming, as through it one accused admits the guilt of
the offence he is charged with.

The valid confession has a strong evidentiary value, as it may lead toward the conviction,
even solely.

The magistrates are legally authorized to record the statement or the confession of the
accused, as per the Section 164 of Cr.P.C, 1973.
  Meaning and Definition of Confession

The literal meaning of the term confession is ‘a statement by which one admits his/her
guilt’. The confession is basically a statement.

The term confession has been no where defined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, but it
is covered under the headings of the ‘Admission’.

Several jurists, particularly Sir Stephen and Law Journals had defined the Confessions as
per their conscience.

According to the Black’s Law Dictionary:

“Confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved

against him in criminal proceedings to establish the commission of the offence by him.”1

According to Sir Stephen:

J. Stephen in his digest defined the confession as –

A confession is an admission made at anytime by a person charged with a crime, stating

or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime.2

According to Encyclopedia of Law Journal England:

“Confession is a direct admission or acknowledgement of guilt by a person who has

committed a crime.”3

In India it has been a very confusable task to consider the definition of the confession,
which was later made clear in the landmark case Pakala Narayan Swamy v. Emperor4

In this case Lord Atkin observed that, “A confession must either admit in terms the
offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An
admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not in
itself a confession”.

1
Black’s Law Dictionary
2
Stephen’s Digests On Evidence Law
3
Encyclopedia of England Law Journal
4
AIR 1939 P.C. 47
  Admission and Confession

If we go thoroughly through the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it points
out certain difference between Admissions and the confessions, although the confession
is the species of the admission.

1. Admission is statement oral or written which gives inference about the liability of
person making admission.
Confession is statement written or oral which is direct admission of suit.

2. Confessions are also an admission or we can say that the admission is the genus
and the confession is the species of the admission.

3. Admission usually relates to civil transaction and comprises all statements

amounting to admission defined under section 17 and made by person mentioned
under sections 18, 19 and 20.
The Confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be
proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an
offence by him.

4. Admissions are not conclusive as to the matters admitted it may operate as an

estoppel.
Confession if deliberately and voluntarily made may be accepted as conclusive of
the matters confessed.

5. Admissions may be used on behalf of the person making it under the exception of
section 21 of evidence act.
The Confessions always go against the person making it.

6. Admission by one of the several defendants in suit is no evidence against other

defendants.
Confessions made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same
offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused (section 30).
  Categorization of Confession

The confessions are majorly categorized in two categories –

1. Judicial Confessions.
2. Extra-Judicial Confessions.

Judicial Confessions are those categories of the confessions which are made before a
magistrate or in the court or in the due course of the legal proceedings.

A judicial confession has been defined to mean “plea of guilty on arrangement (made
before a court) if made freely by a person in a fit state of mind.

Extra-Judicial Confessions are those categories of the confessions which are made by
the accused elsewhere than before the magistrate or in court. It is not necessary that the
statements should have been addressed to any definite individual. It may have taken
place in the form of a prayer. It may be a confession to a private person.

An extra-judicial confession has been defined to mean “a free and voluntary confession
of guilt by a person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other
than judge or magistrate seized of the charge against himself.5

As example - A man after the commission of a crime may write a letter to his relation or
friend expressing his sorrow over the matter. This may amount to confession.

Extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes
the test of credibility.

Extra-judicial confession is generally made before private person, which includes even
judicial officer in his private capacity. I may also include a magistrate not empowered to
record confessions under section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

5
M. Monir on Law of Evidence 1872, p. 158 (15th edition)
In case of Sahoo vs State of UP6, an accused who was charged with murder of his
daughter in law with whom he was always quarreling was seen on the day of the murder
going out of the home saying words to the effect, "I have finished her and with her the
daily quarrels.".

The statement was held to be a valid confession because it is not necessary for the
relevance of a confession that it should communicate to some other person.

 Relevancy of Confession

Relevancy of confession or sort of matters related to the confession is further classified in

two forms:

1. Confession when not relevant or inadmissible.

2. Confession when relevant or admissible.

1. Confession when not relevant or inadmissible:

A confession becomes irrelevant and thus, inadmissible, in situations described in the

Sections 24, 25, and 26.

I. Section 24 - Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a

person in authority –

“ Confession made by an accused is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making

of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by inducement, threat, or
promise, made by any person in authority and that in the view of the court such
inducement, threat, or promise gives reasonable ground to the person that by making
the confession he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporary nature in
reference to the proceedings against him.”7

The following conditions are necessary to attract the provisions of this section –

6
AIR 1966 SC 40
7
Section- 24 of IEA, 1872.
a) The confession must have been made because of inducement, threat, or promise –

A confession should be free and voluntary. If it flows from fear or hope, it is

inadmissible. In deciding whether a particular confession is because of threat,
inducement, or promise, the question has to be considered from the point of view
of the accused as to how the inducement, threat or promise would operate in his
mind.

For example, where the accused was told by the magistrate, "tell me where the things
are and I will be favorable to you", it was held to be inadmissible.

b) The inducement, threat, or promise, must be made by a person in authority –

A person in authority is not merely a police officer or a magistrate but every such
person who can reasonably hold a sway over the investigation or trial. Thus,
government officials such as a senior military officer, police constable, warden, clerk
of the court, all have been held to be a person in authority. Even private persons such
as the wife of the employer were also held to be a person in authority.

c) It should relate to the charge in question - This requirement is specifically stated in the
section, which says that the inducement must have "reference to the charge against the
accused person".

d) It should hold out some material, worldly, or temporal benefit or advantage –

The inducement should be about some tangible benefit. For example, a reference to
spiritual benefit such as, taking an accused to a temple to confess does not fall in this
category but a promise to reduce the sentence would fall under it.

II. Confession to Police is inadmissible –

It is presumed that police holds a position of great influence over the actions of the
accused and so there is a high probability that confessions obtained by the police are
tainted with threat, or inducement.

Further, it is important to prevent the practice of oppression or torture by the police to

extract the confession.

This principle is conferred by Sections 25 and 26, which are as follows –

a) Section 25 - Confession to police-officer not to be proved –

 “No confession made to a police-officer shall be proved as against a person accused
of any offence.”8

This section is very broadly word. It strictly disallows any confession made to the
police officer as inadmissible no matter what the circumstances.

Section 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 is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against
such person.”9

This section further tries to ensure that the confession is not extracted due to the
influence of the police. Any confession made while the maker is in custody of the
police is invalid unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate.

The presence of a magistrate is, by a legal fiction, regarded as equivalent to removal

of police influence and the statement is therefore considered to be free from police
influence. Mere absence of the police officer from a room where confession is taken
does not terminate his custody of the accused.

Here the word custody does not just mean formal custody but includes all such state
of affairs in which it can be said that the accused have come into the hands of a police
officer or it can be said to have been under some sort of surveillance or restriction or
ill-treatment.

2. Confessions when relevant and admissible

I. The exception to the Section 26 provides that the confession by the accused
under the custody of the police may also be proved if it has been made in the
immediate presence of the magistrate.

8
Section- 25 of IEA, 1872
9
Section- 26 of IEA, 1872
 II. Section 27 – How much of information received from accused may be
proved -

“Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of

information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police
officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”10

Section 27 provides another exception when a confession made to the police is

admissible.

This is when a confession leads to the discovery of a fact connected with the crime.
The discovery assures that the confession is true and reliable even if it was extorted.
In order to ensure the genuineness of recoveries, it has become a practice to effect the
recoveries in the presence of witnesses.

III. Section 28 - Confessions made after removal of threat –

“If the confession is obtained after the impression caused by threat, inducement, or
promise is removed in the opinion of the court, then the confession is admissible.”11

This section provides that any confessions by the accused will be admissible, which
had been deliberately made by the accused itself in the absence of any sorts of
influences or in free mental conditions.

IV. Section 29 - Confession made under promise, deception,etc. –

“If a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it
was made –

(a) under a promise of secrecy or

(b) in consequences of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpose of
obtaining it or

(c) while the accused was drunk or

(d) while answering the questions he need not have answered or

10
Section- 27 of IEA, 1872
11
Section- 28 of IEA, 1872
 (e) When the accused was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession
and that evidence of it might be given against him.”12

The basis of this section is that any breach of confidence or of good faith or practice
of any artifice does not invalidate a confession. However, a confession obtained by
mere trickery does not carry much weight. For example, in one case, an accused was
told that somebody saw him doing the crime and because of this the accused made a
confession. The court held the confession as inadmissible.

V. Section 30 – Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it

and others jointly under trial for same offence:

“When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a
confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons
is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other
person as well as against the person who’ makes such confession.13

Explanation:

“Offence,” as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit the
offence.”

However, it is in the discretion of the court, whether to considers such confessions or not.

As example –

(a) A and В are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said—“B and I
murdered C.” The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.

(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that С was
murdered by A and B, and that В said—“A and I murdered C.”

This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as В is not
being jointly tried.

12
Section- 29 of IEA, 1872
13
Section- 30 of IEA, 1872
Case Study

1. In Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh14, the extra judicial confession

was made to Pradhan who was accompanied by Police (enquiry) Officer.

The only interference which could be drawn from the circumstance of the case, is that
the confession was made at the time when the accused was in the custody of police
and it could not be proved against the accused.

It could not be believed that, when a police officer has seen the accused with deceased
at last occasion, he will not take the accused in the custody.

In the case it is evident that the Police Officer has created a scene and to avoid
Section 25 and 26, the Police Officer has left the accused in the custody of village
head man (pradhan). The Police Officer in this case has no difficulty to take the
accused to the Judicial Magistrate and to take extra- judicial confession under section
164 of Cr.P.C which has got more probable value and it gives an opportunity to make
the required warning, that this confession will be used against the accused and after
this warning he records the confession.

Under section 26, no confession made by an accused to any person while in custody
of a police officer shall be proved against him.

2. In Jagata vs State of Haryana15, the Supreme Court held that, “the evidence of
extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. If the evidence about extra-
judicial confession is lacking in all probability then there will be no difficulty in
rejection of the same.”

3. In Raja Ram vs State of Bihar16, in this case the issue was whether a confesion
made to the Excise Inspector is inadmissible by the reason of Section 25 of IEA,
1872?

The court held that, in popular sense Excise Officers are also regarded as the Police
Officer, being referred to Excise Police and hence the confession made to them is
inadmissible in the court, by the effect of Section 25 of evidence Act, 1872.
14
AIR 1990 SC 2140
15
AIR 1974 SC 1545
16
AIR 1964 SC 828
 Conclusion

The confession is a species of the admission, which is basically a statement by which any
accused of crime, admits his/her guilt, either directly or admits such facts by which it can
be proved.

It is nowhere defined in the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The confessions have the strong evidentiary value; a valid confession bounds a confessor
and can with the corroboration or alone leads to the conviction of the accused.

The sections or the provisions in the Indian Evidence Act 1872 are there to cover almost
aspects, yet the enhancement is necessary in the provisions regarding the admissions and
confessions.

The amendment in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is necessary to update the provisions so
as to not let the trust and faith of the people of India in the Indian Judiciary, goes into the
vain. The provisions shall be simplified, that they provides impartial and speedy justice to
the people at large.

The draft Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003 in its statement of objects and reasons
mentions that the disposal of criminal trials in the courts takes considerable time and that
in many cases trial do not commence for as long as 3 to 5 years after the accused was
remitted to judicial custody.

In regard of this, it is very much essential that provisions of Criminal Law should be
changed so as to reduce the time or speedier justice needed for a common person to get
justice.

Justice should not be only given, but it also should be given at the time, otherwise it will
be no more a justice.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Black’s Law Dictionary

2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

3. Professional’s Criminal Manual (2017) Justice M.R.

Mallick

4. www.indiankanoon.com

5. www.manupatra.com

6. www.lawlex.com