Evidentry Value of Retracted Confessions

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. Mohd Aamir Khan

(FACULTY OF Evidence Law)

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY:

Prashant Kerketta

Semester VII, Section B

ROLL NO. 119

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 28.04.2018

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, CHHATTISGARH

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

 List of Cases…………………………………………………………………………………3
 Declaration…………………………………………………………………………………..4
 Certificate……………………………………………………………………………………5
 Acknowledgement…………………………………………….……………………………..6
 Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………7
 Objectives …………………………………………………..…………………….…………8
 Research Methodology………………………………………………………………………8
 Retracted Confessions………………………………………………….……………………9
 Evidentry value of Retracted Confessions……………………………………….……….…10
 Importance of Corroboration……………………………………………………………..…11
 Conclusion……..…………………………………………………………………………….15
 Bibliography/Webliography…………………………………………………….…..….……16

2
 List of Cases

 Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India, SC 2008

 Bharat v. State of U. P., 1971 (3) SCC 950.
 Subramania Gounden v. The State of Madras, 1958 SCR 428.
 Pyare Lal v. State of Assam, AIR 1957 SC 216.
 Pyare Lai v. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1094),

3
 DECLARATION

I, Prashant Kerketta, having researched on the project work titled as “ Evidentry Value of
Retracted Condessions” as a student hereby declare that this Research Project has been prepared
for academic purposes only, and has been prepared by myself under the supervision of
Dr.Mohd Aamir Khan, faculty of Evidence Law, Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.

The views expressed in the report are personal and do not reflect the views of any authority or
any other person.

I also declare that this Research Paper or any part thereof has not been or is not being submitted
elsewhere for the award of any degree or Diploma. This report is the intellectual property of the
University on the part of the student research work, and the same, or any part thereof, may not be
used in any manner whatsoever in writing.

4
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. Prashant Kerketta, Roll Number- 119, student of Semester- VII, B.A-
LL.B.(Hons.), Hidayatullah National Law University, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh), has
researched on the project work titled “Evidentry Value of Retracted Confessions”, in partial
fulfillment of the subject of Evidence Law.

Place: New Raipur Dr. Mohd Aamir Khan

Date: 28.04.2018 (Faculty: Evidence Law)

Hidayatullah National Law University, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and gratefulness to my

teacher Dr. Mohd Aamir Khan, for giving me a project topic such as this and for having faith in
me so as to present my report in the best possible way. Sir, thank you for providing me with an
opportunity to learn and grow.

I also extend my gratitude to the staff and administration of Hidayatullah National Law
University, for providing the infrastructural facilities in the form of our library and IT Lab,
which were a source of great help for the completion of this project.

Last but not the least, a heartfelt thanks to my seniors and friends who helped me out
even in the oddest of hours.

Thanking you all sincerely,

Prashant Kerketta

Sem VII

Section –B

Roll No-119

6
 Introduction

Retraction may be defined as the act of recanting. To recant means to withdraw or renounce prior
statements formally. Retracted confession means a confession which has been withdrawn or
rejected later on by the accused who made it. If it is proved that a confession, though retracted
was originally made voluntarily can be acted upon along with the other evidence.

The word retracted literally means to draw back or to reject an earlier statement.

Retraction of statements is something that happens in most criminal cases. The reason behind the
same may be the inadequate police protection or the ill-developed mechanism for witness
protection or the inherent securities of the witnesses or the accused under the influence of the
status of the opposing party as happens in almost all the high profile cases.

It should be noted here that the Act makes no distinction whatsoever between a retracted
confession and an unretracted confession and both are equally admissible and may be taken into
consideration against the accused though it may be that less weight would be attached to a
retracted confession.

A retracted confession is a statement made by an accused person before the trial begins by which
he admits to have committed the offence but which he rejected at the trial. It is unsafe to base the
convict5ion on a retracted confession unless it is corroborated by trustworthy evidence. There is
no definite law that a retracted confession cannot be the basis of the conviction but it has been
laid down as a rule of practice and prudence not to depend on retracted confession unless
corroborated or supported by statements.1

1
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confession-under-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html

7
 Objectives

 To study about Retracted Confessions.

 To study about the Evidentry value of Retracted Confessions.
 To study about the requirements to support Retracted Confessions.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This is a descriptive & analytical research paper. My research paper is largely based on the
critical review of secondary and electronic sources of information. References used as guided by
the faculty of Cr.PC , Ms. Shreejaya Patil were of great use in completing this project.

8
 RETRACTED CONFESSIONS

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 makes it clear that a confession will be irrelevant if
not made freely and voluntarily. No inquisitor should offer any inducement, threat or promise to
the accused.2 This is further augmented by Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which requires a
Magistrate to explain to the person making the confession that he is not bound to make a
confession, and if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him.3

A retracted confession is one which is withdrawn or retracted later on by the person making it.
Such a confession, if proved to be voluntarily made, can be acted upon along with the other
evidence in the case, and there is no legal requirement that a retracted confession must be
supported by independent reliable evidence corroborating it in material particulars. The use to be
made of such a confession is a matter of prudence rather than of law.

Three important rules regarding confessions which are retracted are:

1. A confession is not to be regarded as involuntary merely because it is retracted later on.

2. As against the maker of the confession, the retracted confession may form the basis of a
conviction if it is believed to be true and voluntarily made.

3. The confession of a co-accused cannot prove a charge where the other evidence adduced
against an accused is wholly unsatisfactory.

In the case of Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India4, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India that a confession , when retracted , does not automatically mean that it has become useless .
The burden is then on the prosecution to satisfy the Court that the confession is voluntary and not
the outcome of coercion, threat or inducement coming from the person in authority . The legal
position is well settled.

2
Sec. 24, Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3
Sec. 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4
Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India, SC 2008

9
 Evidentiary value of Retracted Confessions

 Status of retracted confessions under the Act5

The Act makes no distinction whatsoever between a retracted confession and an unretracted
confession and both are equally admissible and may be taken into consideration against the
accused though it may be that less weight would be attached to a retracted confession.

 Particulars of a retracted confession

As the confession is required to be clear and specific, its retraction should also not be ambiguous,
vague or imaginary. The person alleging retraction of confession or his earlier inculpatory
statement must satisfy the court that that he had withdrawn from his statement at the earliest
possible time and without any afterthought or advice and must give reasons for the same.
 Weight attached to a retracted confession
The weight to be attached to a retracted confession must depend on the circumstances under
which the confession was given, and the circumstances under which it was retracted including
the reasons given for retraction.

 Value of retracted confession against Co-accused and Accomplice

Where more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by
any one of his co-accused can be taken into consideration by the court not only against the maker
but also against his co-accused. The Act nowhere provides that if a confession is retracted, it
cannot be taken into consideration against the co-accused or the confession accused.
A retracted confession can be considered against but it cannot be the basis for conviction of
co-accused.
However, the standard of corroboration is quite different in such cases. In the case where the
resiled statement is being used against the confessing accused, general corroboration is sufficient
whereas in cases of co-accused or conspirators, corroboration in material particulars in
necessary.

5
http://blog.ipleaders.in/evidentiary-value-retracted-confessions-india/

10
  Importance of corroboration6

It is only as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctioned itself into a rule of law
that retracted confession cannot be made the sole basis of conviction unless it is
corroborated. It is not necessary that each and every circumstance mentioned in the
confession is separately and independently corroborated. It would be sufficient if the
general trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which would tally with
what is contained in the confession

What is required is substantial corroboration, i.e. a general corroboration of important incidents,

and not an independent corroboration of each and every circumstance mentioned in the
confession statement.

 If substantial corroboration is available, a valid conviction can be founded on a retracted

confession.
 But corroboration is rule of prudence, not of law, so that there may be circumstances
under which a conviction can be based solely on a retracted confession, provided the
Court is satisfied that the confession was voluntary and true. The fact that the confession
was retracted at a late stage- during examination under section 313 reinforces the
conclusion that it was voluntarily. The fact that the statement was lengthy and covered
minute details goes to ensure its truth.
 Its value weakens when it is sought to be used against a co-accused.
 But a confession cannot be taken as involuntary merely because it has been retracted and,
therefore, in the absence of evidence as to coercion, the use of retracted confession would
not be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
 Retracted evidence is a weak piece of evidence. So, conviction cannot be solely based on
such confession, unless it is voluntary, truthful and is corroborated by independent and
cogent evidence

6
http://blog.ipleaders.in/evidentiary-value-retracted-confessions-india/

11
It is a settled rule of evidence that unless a retracted confession is corroborated in material
particulars, it is not prudent to pass a conviction on its strength alone. Corroboration should not
be dispensed with merely because the confession contains a wealth of detail.

When a confession is retracted, the Court must look for the reasons for making of the
confession as well as for its retraction, and must weigh the two to determine whether or not
the retraction affects the voluntary nature of the confession.7

 If the Court is satisfied that it was retracted because it was an after-thought advice, the
retraction may not weight with the Court if the general facts proved in the case and the
tenor of the confession as made and the circumstances of its making and withdrawal
warrant it user.
 All the same, the Court would not act upon the retracted confession without finding
assurance from some other sources as to the guilt of the accused.

In short, while a true confession voluntarily made may be acted upon with the slight evidence to
corroborate it, a retracted confession requires the general assurance that the retracted confession
was an after-thought and that the earlier statement was true.

The fact that the confession was retracted not at the earliest opportunity but only when the
accused was examined under section 313 (post) would be a circumstance to show that the
confession had been voluntarily.

 What is sufficient corroboration of a retracted confession is to be decided in each case on

its own facts and circumstances. It may, however, be generally stated that where the
prosecution, by the production of reliable evidence which is independent of the
confession and which is also not tainted evidence like that of an accomplice or of a co-
accused establishes the truth of certain parts of the account given in the confession and
these parts are so integrally connected with other parts of the accused’s confession, that a
prudent judge of facts would think it reasonable to believe that what the accused has

7
http://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/evidentiary-value-of-confession/3545

12
 stated in the confession as regards his own participation in the crime is also true,- that is
sufficient corroboration. More than this is not needed; less than this ordinarily sufficient.

Hidayatullah, C.J. on behalf of a three judge bench in the case of Bharat v. State of U. P8 stated
that it is safe to rely on a confession when the voluntary character and truth of the statement are
accepted. Its voluntary nature depends on whether there was any threat, inducement or promise,
and its truth can be determined by examining the entire prosecution case. A retracted confession
however is treated differently.

As laid down in an earlier case of Subramania Gounden v. The State of Madras9 a retracted
confession may be taken into account by a court, however, it must look for the reasons for
making the confession and the reasons for its retraction. These reasons must be weighed in order
to determine whether the retraction affects the voluntary nature of the confession. It can be said
that a true confession, which is made voluntarily, may be acted upon, even with slight evidence

to corroborate it. However, there must be a general assurance that the retraction was a mere after
thought when using a retracted confession.

In addition to this, a four judge bench in Pyare Lal v. State of Assam10 clarified the legal
position with regard to retracted confessions. It is not a rule of law, but a rule of prudence, that if
made voluntarily and the court is satisfied of its truthfulness, a retracted confession may form the
legal basis of a conviction, if it is corroborated in material particulars.

In Pyare Lai v. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1094)11, it was held by the Supreme Court
that a retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the Court is satisfied that it
was true and was voluntarily made. But it was also held that a Court shall not base a conviction
on such a confession without corroboration. It is not a rule of law, but is only a rule of prudence.

Moreover, the fact that a confession is made voluntarily, free from threat and inducement can be
regarded as presumptive evidence of its truth. Still there may be circumstances that indicate that

8
Bharat v. State of U. P., 1971 (3) SCC 950.
9
Subramania Gounden v. The State of Madras, 1958 SCR 428.
10
Pyare Lal v. State of Assam, AIR 1957 SC 216.
11
Pyare Lai v. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1094)

13
the confession is not wholly or partly true, in which case it loses most of its evidentiary value.
Hence, in order to be assured of the truth of a confession, the court should look to corroboration
from other evidence. However, each and every material particular need not be corroborated. The
court should ideally have assurance from all angles that the retracted confession was in fact,
voluntary and it must have been true.

14
 Conclusion

Therefore, the general law applicable to retracted confessions can be summarised in the
following manner:-

It is not a rule of law, but a rule of prudence, that if made voluntarily and the court is satisfied of
its truthfulness, a retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction, after it has been
broadly corroborated with material particulars. If the retracted confession is proved to be made
voluntarily, freely and is corroborated broadly with the rest of the evidence, it is held to be valid.

A confession is one of the most important pieces of evidence against a person. However, once it
is retracted, whether it takes the person days or months to do so, a doubt is created as to its
validity.

Therefore,I believe that a retracted confession should not be the sole basis of conviction and
should be given very less evidentiary value. This is mainly because false confessions carry a
serious risk of convicting innocent people, and the human cost involved is too high.

Moreover, if once a confession is retracted, if the court “has to” base its decision on the retracted
confession itself, without setting it aside, then strong corroboration is an absolute essential.

15
 Webliography/Bibliography

 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confession-under-indian-evidence-act-
1547-1.html
 http://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/evidentiary-value-of-confession/3545
 http://blog.ipleaders.in/evidentiary-value-retracted-confessions-india/#_ftn25
 The Indian Evidence Act 1872

16