CONTENTS

Contents................................................................................................................................................................... 1
introduction.............................................................................................................................................................3
Definition of Admissions:-....................................................................................................................................4
Reasons for admissibility of admissions...................................................................................................................6
Types of admissions.................................................................................................................................................7
Admissions by party to proceeding or his agent......................................................................................................8
Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against to suit............................................................12
Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit................................................................................12
Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf:- section 21...................................13
WHEN THE STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEVANT AS DYING DECLARATION OR AS THAT OF DECEASED
PERSON UNDER SECTION 32:.............................................................................................................................13
STATEMENTS AS TO BODILY FEELING OR STATE OF MIND.................................................................................14
[SECTION 21(3)]:.................................................................................................................................................14
STATEMENTS WHEN RELEVANT.........................................................................................................................15
Without prejudice communications.......................................................................................................................16
Classes of persons not exempted from giving evidence.....................................................................................17
Admission not conclusive proof.........................................................................................................................17
Confessions............................................................................................................................................................18
CONFESSION CAN BE CLASSIFIED INTO TWO CATEGORIES:...............................................................................19
Section 24 defines the conditions for irrelevancy of confessions:-.........................................................................20
Confession to police...............................................................................................................................................22
Effect of police presence....................................................................................................................................22
Statement during investigation and before accusation......................................................................................23
Use of confessional statement by accused.........................................................................................................23
Confession in police custody..............................................................................................................................24
Presence of magistrate.......................................................................................................................................25
How much of information received from the accused may be proved:-................................................................25
Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement threat or promise, relevant –...................31
Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy ,etc.-............................32
CONFESSION IN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS:.......................................................................................................33
Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence:. 34

1
 EVIDENCE PROJECT WORK
Admissions and confessions

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Assit. Prof. Mrs. ANJU LAKHVEER SINGH

UILS B.com.L.L.B(Hons.)

Panjab University, Chd. Roll no. 146/15

2
 INTRODUCTION

The law of evidence is also known as rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that
govern the proof of facts in a legal proceedings. 1 In 1868 Maine prepared a draft bill of law of evidence,
but it was abandoned as its contents were not suitable for the country. In 1871 Mr. Stephen prepared a
new draft which was passed and acknowledged as act of 1872. The main object behind this act is to
prevent the inaccuracy in the admissibility of evidence and to introduce a more correct and uniform rule
of practice. The main principles which form the foundations of law of evidence are:

1. Evidence must be confined to the matter in issue;

2. Hearsay evidence must not be admitted;
3. Best evidence must be given in all cases.2

The Indian evidence act 1872 extends to whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir. This act
has come into force on the first day of September 1872. The law of evidence is procedural and does not
affect the substantive right of parties. The rules of law of evidence for civil and criminal cases are in
general the same. But there are certain sections of the act which apply exclusively to civil cases and
some to criminal cases. Section 24-30 dealing with confessions and section 53 and 54 dealing with the
character of an accused person. Section 120 dealing with competency of a spouse as witness for or
against the other spouse, and section 155 dealing with the character of prosecution in cases of rape or
attempt to ravish are sections exclusively applicable to criminal cases. Section 52 and 55 dealing with
the character of parties and section 115-117 dealing with estoppels apply exclusively to civil cases. The
method of proving is same in both, but there is a marked difference as to the effect of evidence in civil
and criminal cases.The INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT is mainly based on the English law of evidence. It
consists of 11 chapters and 167 sections which are divided into three parts.

PART I – Section 1-55

PART II- Section 56-100

PART III – Section 101-167

1
En.m.wikipedia.org
2
Lawn.com

3
 Definition of Admissions:-

The section points to three things. It first defines "admission"in terms of statement which
may be oral or documentary or in electronic form.3 Secondly, the Section says that an
admission will be relevant only if it is made by any of the person specified in the act. The
list is to be found in S. 18. Thirdly thesection says that it will be relevant only in the
circumstances mentioned in the act. Such circumstances are mentioned in sections 18-30.

The definition has been amended so as to include in its fold statementsrecorded in an

electronic form.
About the definition of an admission the section says that an admission is a statement
which suggests some inference as to the existence of a fact in issue or a fact relevant to
the issue. If, for example, a person is sued for therecovery of a loan and there is an entry
in his account books recording thefact of the loan, that is an admission on his part of his
liability or if he makesany statement to the effect that "he does owe the money" that will
also be anadmission being a direct acknowledgement of liability. It will dispense with the
necessity of any further proof of the fact of the loan.
A person accused of the murder has sustained injuries. He explained to the doctor the
cause of his injuries. This explanation was held to be an admission. Its admissibility was
not hit by any of the provisions of the act relating to admissibility of confessions.
It is not however, necessary that to be an admission a statement should go as far as that. It
will be sufficient if the statement admits a fact which suggests an inference as to his
liability. If, for example, a person is charged with causing death by poisoning and he
admits to have purchased poison. This statement suggest the inference that he is guilty of
the murder unless he can prove that he needed the poison for some innocent purpose. The
inference must be a clear one in the setting. The supreme court has given some guidance
in this respect. Before the right of a party can be taken to be defeated on the basis of an
alleged admission by him, the implication of the statement made by him must be clear
and conclusive. There should not be any doubt or ambiguity. It would benecessary to read
all of his statements together. Applying this approach to the facts of a case before it,

3
Inserted by the informational technology act, 2000

4
Karnataka high court concluded that stray statement elicited in cross examination cannot
be taken to be an admission.4
Themere admission by a person that he put his thumb impression or signature upon a Piece of Paper
without knowing its nature and contents is not admission by him that he executed the documents.5
Stating the reasons for this approach, the Madras High Court stated in a case that admissions at best
only suggest inferences. The Court must examine the statement inside out and before holding a party to
his statements must see that the statement is unequivocal and comprehensive. "It must go the whole hog,
as it were, on the point at issue, lf a party’s admission falls short of the totality of the requisiteevidence
needed for legal proof of a fact in issue, such an admission wouldbe only a truncated admission.When a
person applies for exemption under an Urban Land Ceiling Act, it does not amount to an admission on
his part that the land in question is coming within the meaning of the Act because thecourt may hold that
the Act was not applicable to the land in question. At any rate any such application is an averment about
the application of a particular law and an admission on a point of law is a contradiction in terms.6

Where a person signed a partition deed, it was held to be an admission against him, though it was not
signed by the other parties to the deed.7 The court said that the statement of the supreme court in
Nagubai ammal v. B. Shama Rao , to the effect that an admission must be clear and unambiguous , this
requirement was satisfied by the statement in the present partition deed.

The whole of the statement of which the admission forms a part has to be proved and not any edited
portion of it.

4
Parameshwari bai v. m sandia A.I.R 1981 p.47
5
Brij mohan v. amar nath A.I.R 1980
6
Dilipsinh mohansinh v. S.J Mansha A.I.R 1995
7
Hemchandra v. om prakash A.I.R 1987

5
 REASONS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF ADMISSIONS
An admission is relevant evidence. Several reasons have been suggested for receiving admissions in
evidence. In phipson on the law of evidence, four such reasons have been suggested and critically
examined.
1. Admission as waiver of proof:- The first is that if a party has admitted a fact, it dispenses with
the necessity of proving that fact against him. It operates as a waiver of proof. To a certain extent
this principle has been expressly adopted by section 58 of the Indian evidence act. The section
confines this effect only to formal admissions made at the time of the trial or as part of pleadings
or in reference to the litigation. This only applies to admissions voluntarily made with a view to
the trial, not to those used as evidence, for the latter usually consist of a casual statements made
before litigation was contemplated , which are not conclusive. Section 58 also qualifies the
principle by saying in the proviso that the court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted
to be proved otherwise than by such admissions." Thus the Court may reject an admission either
wholly or in part or may require further proof. “ Waiver of proof,” therefore, cannot be an
exclusive reason for the relevancy of an admission.
2. Admissions as statement against interest—The second suggested reason is that an admission,
being a statement against the interest of the maker,should be supposed to be true, for it is highly
improbable that a person will voluntarily make a false statement against his own int erest. But
this also does not squarely account for the relevancy of admissions. For one thing, Section17
does not require that an admission should be a statement against one’s own interest. All that is
necessary is that the statement should suggest some inference as to fact in issue or relevant to the
issue, even if the inference is in favour of the declarant. The act does not seem to require that an
admission should be a self-harming statement; the definition also includes self-serving
statements, though, of course, a party can prove a self-serving statement only under the
exceptions laid down in section 21. Where, however, a person’s self-serving statement
subsequently becomes-adverse to his interest, it may be proved against him as an admission. In
the words of the Supreme Court,"though in a prior statement, an assertion in one’s own interest
may not be evidence, a prior statement adverse to one’s interest would be evidence. Indeed, it
would be the best evidence? Stray statements in the deposition of the landlord showing that there

6
 was no personal need of the premises, amounted to an admission against his own interest in
filing the eviction proceedings.8
3. Admissions as evidence of contradictory statements—Still another reason that partly accounts
for the relevancy of an admission is that there is a contradiction between the party’s statement
and his case. This kind of contradiction discredits his case. If, for example, A sues B upon a
loan.His account books show that the loan was given to C. The statement in his accounts is an
admission on his part as it contradicts his case against B. but this is onlypartly true, for the
principle is that a party can prove all his opponent’s statement about the facts of the case and it is
not necessary that they should be inconsistent with his case.
4. Admissions as evidence of truth- the last and most plausible and perhaps widely accepted
reason that accounts for relevancy of admissions is that whatever statement a party makes about
the facts of the case,9 whether they be for or against his interest, should be relevant representation
or reflecting the truth as against him.

TYPES OF ADMISSIONS
1. Formal or judicial admissions – an admission which is made as a part of the proceedings so
that it is recorded in the file of the court, that is called a formal or judicial admission.
“admissions expressly made in the proceedings prior to the trial are sometimes called formal or
express admissoions, to to distinguish them from that informal statements made by a party in his
interest, which may be proved by witnesses.
2. Informal or casual admissions – such admissions may occur on ordinary course of life, or in
the course of business, or in casual or informal conversation. The admission may be in written or
oral. Written admissions may occur on course of correspondence in latters, books, business
dairies or account books or pass books or other records.
3. Admission and hearsay- a written admission can be proved by a witness who has the writing
with him. An oral admission can be proved either by the party to whom it was made or by
someone who heard it being made.
to this extent the evidence of an informal admission is an evidence of hearsay. Section 60
requires that oral evidence must in all cases be direct, that is to say, the witness must have
personal and direct knowledge of the fact to which he testifies. If , for example, the question is
8
S.veugopal v. a. karrupusami, 2006
9
Cockele’s cases and statutes on evidence, 36

7
 how a fire started. A person who witnessed the fire being started by an explosion can give
evidence of this fact, for he has personal knowledge of the fact. If on his way home he told
someone of the fact of explosion, that other cannot give evidence of the explosion for his
knowledge is nothing but a hearsay.

4. Admissions by conduct- active or passive conduct may in circumstances become evidence of an

admission. “ action of a person often speak louder than his words.” An illustration of active
conduct in Mayo v. Mayo10 a woman registered the birth of the child, but did not enter the name
of the father, his rank or profession. The court said: “That must mean either that she did not
know who the father was and therefore was unable to give those particulars, or else that she was
admitting that the child was illegitimate.

ADMISSIONS BY PARTY TO PROCEEDING OR HIS AGENT

Section 18 lays down classes of persons who can make admissions:-

1. Parties of the suit

2. Agents of parties
3. Persons occupying representative character
4. Statements of third parties
(a) Persons having pecuniary or proprietary interest,
(b) Persons from whom the parties derived their interest,
(c) Persons whose position is in issue or relevant,
(d) Persons expressly referred to.

Parties to suit or proceeding- statement of parties have already been noted along forms of admissions
and the persons to whom admissions can be made. All the statements of a party to suit relating to the
facts which suggest some inference as to a relevant fact or a fact in issue are relevant. The statement of a
party in his written statement in earlier proceedings was held to be relevant against him in a subsequent
proceeding. It seemed to the court to be evidence of telling nature and heavily loaded against the party.11
Where there are more than one plaintiff and defendants to a suit, the act does not make it clear whether
the statement of a party will be relevant against his co plaintiffs or co- defendants. On principle as well
10
A.I.R 1949, p. 172
11
Sitaramcharya v. gururajcharya, 1997

8
as policy the statement of a defendant should not bind his co-defendants, for otherwise the plaintiff can
defeat the case of the other defendants through the month of one of them. That would be unfair to the
co-defendants. So a defendants is bound by his statements only to the extent of his own interest. In a suit
for declaration of ownership and possession against certain persons, one of them in his written statement
conceded the plaintiff claim. That was held to be no evidence against his co-defendants. So is true of the
statement of a co—plaintiff. But since every plaintiff has a pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the
suit, his statement can fall in that category.12An admission is the best evidence only against the party
who has made it.

The admission of a bus conductor that he had taken money from passenger without issuing ticket to him
was considered to be the best piece of evidence against him. But he has a right to remit it.13
Agents of Parties
The statement of an agent to a party are relevant as admission against the party provided the court
regards, under the circumstances of the case, the agents to be expressly or impliedly authorized by the
party to make the statement. Thus the agent should have an express or implied authority to make
the statement in question. According to the law of agency, a statement by an agent in the ordinary course
of the business of agency is an admission against the principal. Where a station master of a railway
company while reporting loss of goods to the police also gave the name of a missing porter as a suspect.
This was held to be an admission against the railway company.14He had theauthority to make a report of
thefts and also to draw the attentionof the police to suspects. The statement of a night inspector to the
party about missing goods was held to be not an admission against the railway company because such a
person has no express or implied authority to make an admission. Communications of an agent to the
principal himself are not relevant as an admission. A shipowner is bound by the statements of his
captain” and also by the notes in the engineer’s log-book. A tenant was held bound by theStatement Of
his power Of attorney that there were arrears of unpaid rent.
According to Section 10 of the Parternership act,1932 “an admission or representation made by a
partner concering the affairs of the firmis evidence against the firm if it is made in the ordinary courseof
business . The acknowledgment Of a debt by a partner is an admission against the firm.

12
Amritolal v. rajneekant mitter, 1874-75 2 i.a 113
13
Delhi transport corporation v. shyam lal, A.I.R 2004, s.c
14
Kriskstall brewery v. turness rail, 1874

9
The position of a lawyer is that a statement as to facts made by him with the express or implied anthority
Of his client is admission against the client. But apart from such authority a lawyer has no right to admit
fact or liability against his client. His statements in the course of arguments also do not constitute any
evidence against the Client.
Statements in representative character
A person who sues or is sued in a representative character, any statement made by him during the time
that he holds such character is an admission against the party whose representative he is. Representative
character is occupied, for example, by trustees, receivers, the assignee of an insolvent’s estate,
executors, administrators, etc. If any statement is made by any such person during the time that he holds
such character, it will be relevant in any suit by or against him in his representative character.
Statements made by a person in his personal capacity cannot affect him in his representative capacity.
Thus where a mother made a statement which would have been relevant against her as an evidence of
adultery, it Was not allowed to be proved against her in a case, in which she was acting as the
administratrix of her husband’s estate.

Statement of Third Parties.

Persons having pecuniary or proprietary interest in subject-matter-Statement of persons who,
though not parties to the proceeding have a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject-matter of the
proceeding, are relevant provided that the statement is made by any such person in the character of his
interest. When certain goods are consigned for carriage, the consignor as well as the consignee has an
interest in the goods, so that if the goods are lost and the consignee sues the carrier, a statement by the
consignor that the goods were properly stowed shall be receivable against the consignee also.An
admission by a joint owner was held to be evidence against other joint owners.15
The Allahabad High Court admitted the evidence of a statement of the plaintiff’s father to the effect as
to in whose possession the land in dispute was.

Admissions by persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest-

It must be borne in the mind that the statement of one person is binding upon the other only when the
latter derives his title through the former. For e.g: A admits in a judicial proceedings that his deceased
brother’s widow adopted C and he was entitled to the property left by his brother A. after the death of
the widow of A’s brother A’s son filed a suit for the declaration that their uncle died leaving no son and
15
Raj kumar v. official receiver, 1996 SCC

10
that they were the revisioners. At the trail C tried to prove the admission of A. it was held that the
admission of A was not binding on the plaintiffs since they claim in their own right and not through their
father.

A tenant derives the title from the landlord. Such admissions are relevant if made during the continuance
of the interest of the person making the statement. Admissions of on person are also evidence against
others in respect of privity between them. According to this clause there must be privity i.e. mutual or
successive relationship to the same right of property.

In Maraim hussain v. syedani16the Karnataka high court has observed that statements made by the
parties to the proceedings or their agents are admissions, the said statement should have been made by a
person who has propritory interest or a pecuniary interest in the schedule property so as to harm the
interest of the person who owns the property on the date of the statement, cannot be treated as
admissions. If on the day the statements were made he has pecuniary or proprietory interest the said
statement cannot be treated as admission under section 18 of the act.

In Hanuman Govind v. state of M.P17the supreme court has held that an admission made by a person
whether amounting to a confession or not cannot be split up and part of it used against him. It must be
used either as a whole or not at all.

ADMISSIONS BY PERSONS WHOSE POSITION MUST BE PROVED AS AGAINST

TO SUIT

Section 19 deals with this issue:-

16
AIR 1995
17
AIR 1952 S.C 343 CR. LJ 129

11
This section deals with statements of persons whose position is in issue, through they are not parties to
the case. The section is based upon the principle that where the right or liability of a party to a suit
depends upon the liability of a third person, any statement by that third person about his liability is an
admission against the parties.

In case of Sivalingham v. sakhtival18 the liability of the third party with whom the agent contracted
on the principal’s behalf , any statement by the third party about his position is an admission against the
parties.

ADMISSIONS BY PERSONS EXPRESSLY REFERRED TO BY PARTY TO SUIT

Section 20 deals with this issue:-

The principle is that when a party makes a reference to a third person for information, any statement by
that person about the subject matter of the reference is an admission against the party making the
reference.

Admissions by referees are relevant but not conclusive, unless they fall within the rule of estoppels
enacted in section 115 of the act, or the reference amounts to an adjustments of a pending suit or to an
admission pending.

The declaration of the person referred to will be admissible only when they relate strictly to the subject
matter in relation to which the reference in made.

Admission is substantive evidence– admissions are substantive evidence by themselves, though they
are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. The admissions duly proved are admissible in evidence
irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether such
party when appearing as a witness-box or not and whether such party when appearing as a witness was
confronted with those statements in case he made a contradictory statements but the admissions must be
clear, if they are to be used against the persons making them. Admission is not admissible against a
person other than the person making it unless such person can be said to be bound by such admission.19

18
AIR 1989 mad. 252
19
Hira chand Kothari v. state of rajasthan AIR 1985

12
 PROOF OF ADMISSIONS AGAINST PERSONS MAKING THEM, AND BY OR ON
THEIR BEHALF:- SECTION 21
The section is based upon the principle that an admission is evidence against the party who has made the
admission and therefore it can proved against him. According to CROMPTON J, if a man makes a
declaration accompanying an act it is evidence but declarations made two or three or a week. Previous to
the transaction in question cannot be evidence otherwise it would be easy for a man to lay grounds for
escaping the consequences of his wrongful acts by making such declarations.
Thus the general rule is that “ the statements of a living person cannot be received unless they are
against his interest .No man should be at liberty to make evidence for himself through his own
statements.As stated in illustration (a) where the question between A and B is whether a particular deed
is genuine .A cannot prove his own statement that the deed is genuine nor B that it is forged.20
Admissions have to be clear if they have to be used against the person making them. Admissions are
substantive evidence by themselves in view of Section 17 and 21 of the Evidence Act. Although they are
not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, the admissions duly proved are admissible evidence
irrespective of whether the party making them appeared in the witness box or not and whether that party
when appearing as witness was confronted with these statements in case.Statements of a living person
are not acceptable as a valid piece of evidence unless they are contrary to the interest of the maker.

The principle is however subject to important exceptions .In these exceptional cases a party is permitted
to prove his own statements. Some of them may be mentioned here:

WHEN THE STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEVANT AS DYING

DECLARATION OR AS THAT OF DECEASED PERSON UNDER SECTION 32:

Section 32 deals with the statement of persons who have died or who otherwise cannot come before the
court. The statement of any such person can be proved in any case or proceeding to which it is relevant
whether it operates in favour of or against the person making the statement. in circumstances stated in
Section 32 such a statement can be proved by the maker himself if he is still alive. The exception is thus
stated in S. 21 (I).

20
Supra 10, page no. 113

13
An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it. when it is of such a nature that if
the person making it were dead. it would be relevant as between third persons under Section 32.
Illustration (b) is on the point. The captain of a ship is sued by the shipowner for casting away the ship
by his negligence. The shipowner gives evidence of the fact that the ship was taken out of her course.
The captain was maintaining a diary in the ordinary course of his duty in which he recorded the course
that the ship followed and which showed that the ship was not taken out of her course. Now if the
litigation was between the shipowner and the insurance company and the question was whether the ship
was lost due to negligence or otherwise and the captain was dead the contents of his book would have
been relevant. Indeed his book would be relevant in any case or proceeding in which the cause of
the loss of the ship was in question. In such circumstances, the captain can prove the contents of his
diary though they operate in his favour.

STATEMENTS AS TO BODILY FEELING OR STATE OF MIND

[SECTION 21(3)]:
The second exception is contained in S. 21 (2). It deals with statements as to body, bodily
feeling or state of mind. The sub-section is as follows :
An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it. when it consists of a statement of
the existence of any state of mind or body. relevant or in issue. made at or about the time when such
state of mind or body existed. and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
The sub-section enables a person to prove his statements as to his state of body or of mind. If,
for example a person is injured and the question is whether the injury was intentional or accidental. his
statement at that time as to the way he was injured can be proved by himself.
The conditions for the admissibility of such statements are. firstly. that the statement should have been
made at about the time when the state of mind or of body which is described by the statement still
existed. The statement should be contemporaneous with the existence of the condition of mind or of
body. This rules out chances of fabrication. Secondly, the statement should be accompanied by conduct
which renders the falsehood of the statement improbable. Thus to reassure that the statement is really
true, the Legislature insist that the statement should be accompanied by such conduct as shows that the
condition of mind or of body described by the statement is really true and not feigned. The conduct of a
person under real pain is different from that of a person who is only acting as such.Illustrations (d) and
(e) deal with this situation. Where the question is whether a person received a stolen property with

14
knowledge that it was stolen. In order to prove that he did not have guilty knowledge, he' offers to prove
that he refused to sell the property below its natural price. His statement explains the state of his mind
and is accompanied by the conductof the refusal to sell. He may, therefore, prove his
statement.21WHERE OTHERWISE RELEVANT:[SECTION 21(3)]:
The last exception is that a person may prove his own statement when it is otherwise relevant under any
of the provisions relating to relevancy .Section 21(3) which incorporates this exception says:
An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it .if it is relevant otherwise than as
an admission. A statement may be relevant either as an admission of a relevant fact or as a proof of the
existence of a fact. There are many cases in which a statement is relevant not because of it is an
admission but because it establishes the existence or non-existence of a relevant fact or a fact in issue. In
all such cases a party can prove his own statements.

STATEMENTS WHEN RELEVANT

The Act provides for the relevancy of statements in several cases. Firstly, a party may prove his own
statement under s.6. If it is a part of the same transaction. The doctrine of res gestae covers such
statements. Where, for example, immediately after a road accident, a person pulled up to the injured who
then made a statement as to the cause of the injury. Thisstatement may be proved by or on behalf of the
injured person, it being a part of the transaction which injured him.22
Secondly, a statement may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it under Section 8 if it
accompanies or explains acts other than statements or if it influenced the conduct of a person whose
conduct is relevant. Where, for example, a person is seen running down a street in an injured condition
and crying out the name of his assailant, he may prove his own statement as it accompanies some
conduct and explains the fact of injury. Similarly, where A says to B, "you have not paid back my
money", and 13- walks away in silence, A may prove his own statement as it has influenced the conduct
of a person whose conduct is relevant.
Thirdly, a statement may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it under" Section 14 if the
statement explains his state of mind or body or bodily feeling when any such thing is relevant or is in
issue. Where, for example, the question is whether a person has been guilty of cruelty towards his wife.

21
Supra 12 page 133,134
22
R v. foster 1834

15
He may prove his statements made shortly before or after the alleged cruelity which explains his love
and affection for and his feeling towards his wife.
Fourthly, a statement may be proved on behalf of the person making it if it is relevant under
any of the clauses under section 32.23

The section provides that in civil cases an admission is not relevant when it is made:
a) Upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given
b) Under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it
should not be given ut finis litium.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATIONS

Section 23 protects communication made ‘without prejudice’ .The words ‘without prejudice’ mean that
the writer says : I make you an offer which you may accept or not .but if you do
not accept it,this letter is not to be used against me,’.
In CIVIL CASES if an admission of liability is made upon an express condition that evidence of such
admission should not be given and that it was made for the purpose of buying peace and settling disputes
by compromise instead of legal proceedings ,or if an admission is made under circumstances from which
the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given .such an
admission is protected by this section.24
When a person makes a statement without prejudice that is to say upon the condition that the evidence of
it shall not be given ,it cannot be proved against him. The protection or privilege against disclosure is
intended to encourage parties in the course of negotiations to settle litigation. The purpose is to enable
parties in an attempt to compromise litigation to communicate with one another freely and without the
embarrassment which the liability of their communications to be put in evidence subsequently might
impose on them.

Classes of persons not exempted from giving evidence

23
Supra 13,pg no 136
24
Supra 17, page no. 112

16
Under the explanation the legal advisor of the parry will not be prevented from giving evidence of any
communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose or any fact showing that crime or fraud has
been committed since his employment.
According the explanation the legal advisor of the party will not be prevented from giving evidence of
any communication made in furtherance of any fact showing that crime or fraud has been committed
since his employment .Section 126 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that no barrister .Attomey,
pleader or Vakil shall at any time be permitted with the express consent of his client to disclose any
communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employement.

But there are exceptions to this rule which are:

a) Any communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose.
b) Any fact observed by any Barrister, Pleader, Attorney or vakil in the course of his employement
showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employement.

Admission not conclusive proof

Firstly, an admission does not constitute a conclusive proof of the facts admitted .It is a prima facie as
defined in section 4 means when a fact has been conclusively proof of the fact admitted evidence can be
given to disprove it .But until evidence to the contrary is given an admission can safely be presumed to
be true.
In Bharat Singh v. Bhagirath, it has been held by the Supreme Court in a number of cases that an
admission is substantive evidence of fact admitted and that admissions duly proved are admissible
evidence irrespective of whether the party making them appears in the witness box or not and whether
that party when appearing as a witness was confronted with those statements in case he .made a
statement contrary to his admissions.

ESTQPPEL OF THE PARTY ADMITTING

Where an admission operates as an estoppel the party admitting the fact will not be allowed to go against
the facts admitted .An estoppels will arise under section 115 when the admission amounts to a
representation that the fact stated is true and the other party has acted and altered his position on the
basis of that representation. Thus where the statement of an elder in the family made consciously and not

17
inadvertently was affirrned by the successor in interest,it was held to be sufficient to constitute an
estoppels.
Western Coal Fields v. Swati industries 25,Where the defendant specifically pleaded thatthe amount
claimed by the plaintiff had been appropriated against another claimed under a contract between the
parties the court said this was a qualified admission and had to be read as a whole.It did not have the
effect of an estoppel against the defendant.

CONFESSIONS

The term “confession” is nowhere defined in the evidence act. All the provisions relating to confessions
occur under the heading of “admission”. This shows the legislative intent of not distinguishing between
an “admission” and a “confession”, so far as at least definition is concerned. The definition of
“admission” as given in section 17 becomes applicable to confession also. Section 17 defines
“admission” as “a statement or documentary , which suggest any inference as to any fact in issue or

25
Western coal fuelds v. swati industries AIR 2003

18
relevant fact”. if such a statement is made by a party to a civil proceeding it will be called an
“admission” and if it made by a party charged with the crime it will be called “confession”. Thus, in
terms of the act, a confession is a statement made by a person charged with a crime suggesting a
inference as to any facts in issue or be as to relevant facts. The inference that the statement should
suggest should be that he is guilty of the crime.26

The definition of “confession” appearing in stephen’s DIGEST OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE is more
or less to the same effect : A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a
crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.

The privy council did not, however, accept this definition for the purposes of the Indian Evidence Act.
Considering the matter in pakala narayan swami v. emperor27, 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, for
example, an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or
revolver which caused death with no explanation of any other man’s possession. The definition is not
contained in the Evidence Act, 1872; and in that act it would not be consistent with the natural use of
language to construe confession as a statement by an accused suggesting the inference that he committed
the crime.”

Palvinder kaur v. state of Punjab28it was that held that :

 Statements in which facts admitted give only inference that accused might have committed the
crime cannot be used as confession.
 A statement which exculpates the maker of it cannot be a confession.

CONFESSION CAN BE CLASSIFIED INTO TWO CATEGORIES:

1) JUDICIAL CONFESSIONL- When a confession made hefore the court or recorded by the
tnagistrate it is said to he a judicial confession A judicial confession has heen defined to mean plea of
guilty on an'angement if made freely by a person in fit state of mind. A is accused of having killed (i He

26
State of maharashtra v. kamal ad md AIR 2013 SC
27
AIR 1939, pc 47
28
AIR 1952, sc 354

19
may before the trial begins confess the guilt before some Magistrate who may record it in accordance
with the provision of section 164 (‘rPC At the committal proceedings before the magistrate or at the trial
before the Session Judge A may confess his guilt All these are judicial confessions.

2) EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION- When a confession is made before the police or any other
individual excluding the Judges and magistrates can extra judicial confession can be made to any person
or to a body of persons. It is not necessary that the statements should have been addressed to any definite
individual, It may have taken place in the form of prayer A confession to private person is
extrajudicial .An extra judicial confession has heen defined to mean a free and voluntary confession of
guilt by a person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with person other than judge or
magistrate seize of the charge against himself. A person was charged with the slaughter of cow which he
has stolen. When the report was to be lodged against the man of the village asked as to why he has
committed the crime. He apologized and said I am sorry for my action. I may be excused.This is
certainly an extra-judicial confession. A man after the coffesion of a crime may write a letter to his
relation or friend expressing his sorrow of the matter. This may also amount to an extra judicial
confession.

Admissibility of confession

A confession can be accepted only if it is voluntary as well s true. If the circumstances of the casethrow
any doubt on its voluntary character the confession must always be rejected. A confession is proved
satisfactorily, to be voluntary and genuine is legal and sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused without
corroboration but ordinarily the practice is to require some support for a confession some corroboration
form facts established outside the confession and receivable consistently with the surrounding
circumstances about which there is no doubt.

SECTION 24 DEFINES THE CONDITIONS FOR IRRELEVANCY OF

CONFESSIONS:-
1. The confession must be the result of inducement, threat or promise;
2. Inducement, etc. should proceed from a person in authority;
3. It should relate to the charge in question;

20
 4. It should hold out some worldly benefit or disadvantage.29

Inducement, threat and promise – a confession if voluntary and truthfully made is an efficacious proof
of guilt. It is a important piece of evidence and therefore it would be necessary to examine whether or
not the confession made by the appellant as voluntary, true and trustworthy.

In Mohammad Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra30the question was whether
the appellant who was a Pakistani national and was caught alive in Bombay terror attack and was
charged with serious crimes including collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the
government of India, commission of terrorist attack, criminal conspiracy to commit murder, robbery
with an attempt to cause death or grievous hurt under the explosive substance act, 1908 had made the
confession voluntarily. The magistrate asked the appellant he was bought before her when he first felt
like making confession. He replied the thought of making confession came to him when he was arrested
by the police. He then added that he had absolutely no regret for whatever he had done. At another stage
of proceeding she once again asked the appellant why he wish to make a confessional statement. The
Supreme Court held that he did not make the confessional statement from any position of weakness or
resignation. Or out of he remorse. He was hero in his own eyes and the confessional statement made by
him was voluntary and truthfully.

Burden of proof – the burden of proof is on the accused to show that his confessional statement os
irrelevant because it attracts the bar of section 24 but such burden is not as high as on the prosection.
Once the accused is able to establish facts which create a reasonable doubt that the confession was not
voluntary, the burden would be shifted to the prosecution to show that the confession was voluntary and
also satisfied all the requirements of relevancy.

The confession of an accused person made outside the court implicating himself and his co-accused
cannot be used against the co-accused.

Admissibility of tape recorder:-

Tape recorded confession is admissible. They are relevant on satisfying the following conditions:

29
Supra 20 , pg np. 152
30
AIR 2012 SC 3565

21
 1) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be identified by the maker of the record or
by those who know it.
2) Accuracy of what was actually recorded has to be proved but the maker of the record and
satisfactory evidence direct or circumstantial has to be there so as to rule out the possibility of
tapering with the record.
3) The subject matter recorded has to be shown to be relevant according to the rules of relevancyin
the Indian Evidence Act.

Reliability of judicial confession

The accused admitted in his confession the full length role played by him in association with the other
two association with the other two assailants for murdering the two ladies. He did not say in so many
words that he also inflicted one stab injury was of no consequence. In a way this aspect was a further
assurance that his confession was not what the police wanted him to say to the magistrate. There was no
reason to think that the accused had been prevailed upon by any extraneous influence to make the
confession.

Protection against self-incrimination is available even at the stage of investigation. It ensures that the
statements have been made by the person accused voluntarily and therefore they are reliable.

CONFESSION TO POLICE

Section 25 says confession made 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.

If confession to police were allowed to be proved in evidence the police would torture the accused and
thus force him to confess to crime which he might not have committed. A confession so obtained would
be unreliable. It would not be voluntary. Such a confession would be irrelevant whatever may be it form,
direct, express, implied or inferred from conduct.

Under this section a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence except so far as
provided under section 27. The principle behind this exclusion is that a confession thus made is
untrustworthy. The reason for the rule is to put a stop to the extortion of confessions by the police by

22
malpractices and to avoid the danger of admitting false confessions. In England, however, a confession
made to a police officer is not inadmissible.

Effect of police presence

The mere presence of the policeman should not have this effect. Where the confession is being given to
someone else and the policeman is only casually present and overhears it that will not destroy the
voluntary nature of the confession. But where that person is a secret agent of the police deputed for the
very purpose of receiving a confession, it will suffer from the blemish of being a confession to police.31

Statement during investigation and before accusation

A confession statement made by a person to the police even before he is accused of any offence is
equally irrelevant. The section clearly says that such a statement cannot be proved against any person
accused of any offence. This means that even if the accusation is subsequent to the statement, the
Statements made during an investigation are likely to suffer from the same blemish. “A confession is
considered involuntary if it is made during an investigation which by its nature, duration, other attendant
circumstances creates hopes or fears or so affects the mind of the suspect that his will crumbles. The
statement of the inspector that the accused admitted to him that he was in possession of counterfeit coin
was not admitted in evidence.

English law on confession to police

English law does not discredit confession to police as a rule. If the judge feels confident that there was
no oppression and statement was free fair and voluntary, he may admit it.32

Use of confessional statement by accused

Though the statement to police made by the conferring accused cannot be used in evidence against him,
he can himself rely on those statements in his defence. The statement of the accused in FIR that he killed
his wife giving her to a fatal blow when some tangible proof of her indiscretion was available was not
usable against him to establish his guilt. But once his guilt was established through other evidence, he
was permitted to rely upon his statement so as to show that he was acting under sudden and grave

31
Supra, pg no. 159
32
R. v. Alerton 1979

23
provocation. There is nothing in the evidence act which precludes an accused person from relying upon
his own confessional statements for his own purposes.

SECTION 26 STATES THAT CONFESSION BY ACCUSED WHILE IN CUSTODY OF

POLICE NOT TO BE PROVED AGAINST HIM :-
This section is a further extension of the principle laid down in section 25.The object is to prevent the
abuse of the powers by the police. Under section 26 no confession made by a person in custody to any
person other than a police officer, shall be admissible unless made in the immediate presence of used the
Magistrate. The reason is that a person in the custody of police is presumed to be under their influence
and it provides opportunity for offering inducement or extorting confessions.

The presence of the magistrate secures the free and voluntary nature of the confession and the
confessing person has the opportunity of making a statement uncontrolled by any fear of the
police.33
Section 25 applies to confessions made to the police .Section 26 govems confessions while in police
custody made to any person other than the police. Hence section 25 and 26 do not lay down identical
propositions .They provide two clear and definite rules. Section 25 bars a confession made to a police
officer whether the confessor is in the custody of the police or not. While section 26 goes further and
enacts that the confession made to any person like a fellow prisoner. doctor. visitor etc while the
confessor in the police custody s inadmissible unless made in the presence of a magistrate .Section 26
does not control or qualify the lastsection and hence a confession made to a Police officer is
inadmissible even if it was made in the presence of a magistrate. The law is imperative in excluding
what comes from an accused person in the custody of the police if it incriminates him.

Confession in police custody

“CUSTODY "has the same meaning in section 26 and section 27 . A formal accusation or arrest is not
necessary to constitute custody .A person is in custody from the time when he either is an accused or as
a suspect comes into the hands of a police officer and cannot leave. Police custody means police control
even if it be exercised in a home in an open place or in the course of a journey and not necessarily in the
walls of a prison. Thus where a woman arrested for the murder of a young boy was left in the custody of
villagers while the chowkidar who arrested her left for the police station and she confessed in her

33
Supra 7, pg.no. 134

24
absence, while the accused being carried on a tonga was left alone by the policeman in the custody of the
tonga driver and he told off his criminality to the tonga driver and where the accused was taken to a
doctor for treatment ,the policeman sanding outside at the door the accused confessed to the doctor-the
confessions in each of these cases was held to be irrelevant. Thus as long as the accused is in effective
police control he is in police custody and temporary absence of the policeman makes no difference.34

No confession is made to anybody while the person making it is in police custody is provable The
section will come into play when the person in police custody is in conversation with any; person other
than a police officer and confess to his guilt. The section is based upon the same fear namely the police
would torture the accused and force him to confess. if not to the police officer himself . at least to
someone else .
Statements made to TV and press reporters by the accused person in the presence of police and also in
police custody were held to be inadmissible.

Presence of magistrate

The section recognizes on exception if the accused confesses while in police custody but in the
immediate presence of the magistrate the confession will be valid. The presence of a magistrate rules out
the possibility of torture thereby making the confession voluntary, free and reliable. Immediate presence
of the magistrate means his presence in the same room, where the confession is being recorded. His
presence in the adjoining room cannot afford the same degree of protection against torture.

34
R v. lester 1985

25
SECTION 27

HOW MUCH OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE 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.
There are two exceptions laid down in the Evidence Act so far the admissibility of confession made by
an accused is concerned:
1. First exception relates to when confession is made by the accused in immediate presence of
Magistrate.
2. When the confession leads to discovery of facts.

Section 27 lays down that during the period of investigation or during police custody any information
given to the police officer that leads to discovery of any facts may be proved whether such information
amounts to confession or not and obtained under
inducement ,threat or promise.
For Example:- A was arrested by the Police officer on a charge of murder. A confessed tio the police
officer that he had committed murder with a dagger which he had hidden in the neighbouring field .

26
On the basis of such information the police officer recovered the dagger from the field. The statement
regarding hiding of dagger to the police officer is relevant.35
This section is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by the
discovery of a fact ,the confession may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted .It comes
into operation only:
1. If and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from
an accused person in police custody; and
2. If the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered.

The broad ground for not admitting confessions made to police officer under inducement, threat or
promise is the danger of admitting false confessions; but the necessity for the exclusion disappears in a
case provided for by this section when the truth of the confession is guaranteed by the discovery of facts
in consequence of the information given. The object of this section is to admit evidence which is
relevant to the matter under enquiry namely the guilt of the accused and not to admit evidence which is
not relevant to that matter. The discovery of a material object is no relevancy to the question whether the
accused is guilty of the offence charged against him, unless it is connected with the offence. It is
therefore the connection of the thing discovered which renders its discovery a relevant fact.
Section 24-26 state the rules of exclusion of confessions. Section 24 forbids confessions caused by
inducement, etc. Section 25 hits confession made to a police officer. While 26excludes made by the
accused while in police custody, but all those such improperly obtained confessions are inadmissible
under these provisions, they may led to the discovery of facts ,things, documents etc, in consequence
some information contained in the confession made by the accused in custody. When a statement
(whether amounting to a confession or not )leads to the discovery of some dead body, weapon or
ornaments, the presumption of falsity attached to the excluded confessions disappears and that part of
the information which relates distinctly to the discovery of the fact is held to be admissible by the theory
of confirmation by subsequent facts.
In Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra36,it was observed that there are various
requirements of the section which can be summed up as follows:
1. The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue .It must be borne in
mind that the provision has nothing to do with the question of
35
Shareyouressay.com
36
AIR 2007, CRI 1168

27
relevancy .The relevancy of fact discovered must be established according to the prescription relating to
relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible.
2. The fact must have been discovered.
3. The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not
by accused’s own act.
4. The person giving the information must be accused of an offence .
5. He msut be in custody of a police officer.
6. The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be
deposed to.

28
7.Thereupon only that portion of information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered
can be proved .The rest is inadmissible.

In State of UP V Deoman Upadhyaya37 Shah J. ,has observed that section 27 is founded on the principle
that even though the evidence relating to confessional or other statements made by a person, whilst he is
in custody of a police officer is tainted and therefore inadmissible ,if the truth of the information given
by him is assured by the discovery of a fact ,it may be presumed to be untainted and is therefore declares
provable in so far as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered.. A reading to section 27 of the
Evidence Act makes it clear that what is allowed to be proved is the information of such party thereof as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. The very language of this section indicates statement by
an individual accused and the discovery in pursuance of such statement .A joint statement followed by a
joint recovery is inadmissible. Thus if the confession is supported by the discovery of a fact it is
presumed to be proved and not to have been extracted. It is obvious that the provisions of section 27 are
not restricted to confessions but its net is much wider that can contain all statements containing
information that led to discovery of facts.
The important point about Section 27 is that it is an exception to the exclusionary rules enacted in
Section 24,25,26 which are themselves exceptions to the general rule that the confession is provable
against its maker as an admission. According to Section 27 when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from an accused person 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.
As an exception Section 27 of the evidence act provides that a confessional statement made to a police
officer or while an accused in police custody can be proved against him, if the same leads to the
discovery of unknown facts .
The exception postulated under section 27 is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to
discovery of some new fact.
In State of Rajasthan v Bhup Singh, the Supreme Court observed the following as the conditions
prescribed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act for unwrapping the cover of ban against admissibility of
the statement of the accused to the police-

37
AIR 1960 SC 1125

29
(1) a fact should have been discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused.

(2) he should have been accused of an offence

(3) he should have been in the custody of police officer when he supplied the information.

(4) the fact so discovered should have been deposed to by the witness.

If these conditions are satisfied that part of the information given by the accused which led to such
recovery gets denuded of the wrapper of prohibition and it becomes admissible in evidence.
In Limbaji and others v State of Maharashtra38 it was held that presumption as to possession of stolen
articles concealed under earth in the field of third party was an evidence of discovery of confessional
statement of accused that he had hidden article at particular places. Accused further led the investigation
officer and panchas to the spots where the stolen property was concealed .Statement as to concealment
was admissible .Accused to be deemed to be in exclusive possession of articles concealed under earth
though spots at which they were concealed could be accessible to public.
IF FACT IS KNOWN TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ACCUSED
It is most essential condition of admissibility under section 27 that the fact must be discovered in
consequence of information supplied by the accused against whom the fact is tried to be proved. If the
fact is known to other person also i.e to the investigation officer (police) it cannot be said that the fact
was discovered in consequence of information given by the accused. Where it was already known to the
public at large the place of weapon to be recovered ,the confessional statement of the accused recorded
thereafter could not be said to have led to the discovery of an unknown fact.

38
LIMBAJI AND OTHERS V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA , AIR 2001

30
FACT: The word “fact” as contemplated by section 27 is not limited to actual physical material object.
It is fairly settled that the expression fact discussed includes not only the physical object produced but
also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused to this.
ARTICLES CONCEALED AT PUBLIC PLACE
In State Of Himachal Pradesh v Jeet Sing39h the Supreme Court observed that there is nothing in
Section 27 of Evidence Act which renders the statement of accused inadmissible if the recovery of
evidence was made from a place which is open or accessible to others. It is fallacious notion that when
recovery of any article was made from a place which is open or accessible to others it would vitiate the
evidence under section 27 of Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open and
accessible to others. For example: If it is buried on the main road side or if it is concealed under dry
leaves, lying on public place or kept hidden in public office would remain out of visibility of others .The
person who hide it alone knows where it is until he discloses the fact to any other person. Hence the
crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily
visible to others , if it is not then it is immaterial that the concealed place is accessible.
In State of Maharashtra v Bharat Farika Dhiwar40,one of the article used in commission of offence
was found in tall grass and other were buried .They were out of visibility of others in normal
circumstances. Their hidden state remained unhampered and accused alone knew where the articles were
until he disclosed .Thus , the plea that sicne the recovered articles was found from open palce , no
reliance could be placed on such recovery would not be tenable.

SECTION 28
39
AIR1999SC 1291
40
AIR2002 SC 16

31
 CONFESSION MADE AFTER REMOVAL OF IMPRESSION CAUSED BY
INDUCEMENT THREAT OR PROMISE, RELEVANT –
If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by any such
inducement, threat or promise has ,in the opinion of the court, been fully removed ,it is relevant.
This section is an exception to the rule laid down in section 24 and it should be read with that section. If
the court thinks that there are good reasons for supposing that all improper influences in the nature of
inducement, threat or promise has been fully removed before the confession was made ,evidence of
confession is admissible. Whether the impression is removed or not is ti be decided by the court on the
facts of the case.
Once the mind is set free from the fear created by threats of evil or from hopes of advantage from
confessing any confession made is likely to be free and voluntary and there can hardly be any objection
to its validity. It is necessary that the effect of threats or inducements has been fully removed and to the
satisfaction of the courts.
The removal or termination of the judgement must be clearly established and the judge must be of the
clear opinion that no trace of the original inducement or threat lingered. There must be strong evidence
to show that the impression of inducement ,threat or promise had been removed when the confession
was made.
In Gendra Barhma v. The State of Assam41 it was observed that on reading the deposition of the
magistrate who recorded the confession of the accused ,as a whole, it was clear that the Magistrate had
not taken due care enjoined by law to see if the state of mind of the accused was fit enough to make a
voluntary incriminating statement comprehending the implication of his admission and after giving him
the time for reflection only a few questions were put to the accused as a matter of enquiry.It was held
that the confession was not voluntary.

41
AIR 1981 CR. LJ. 430

32
 SECTION 29

CONFESSION OTHERWISE RELEVANT NOT TO BECOME IRRELEVANT

BECAUSE OF PROMISE OF SECRECY ,ETC.-
If such a confession otherwise relevant ,it does not become irrelevant merely because ot was made
under a promise of secrecy or in consequence of deception practiced on the accused person for the
purpose of obtaining it,or when he was drunk ,or because it was made in answer to questions which
he need not have answered ,whatever may have been the form of those questions,or because he was
not warned that he was not bound to make such confession ,and that evidence of it might be given
against him.
This section lays down that a confession otherwise relevant i.e. if it is not obtained by any inducement
threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused proceeding from a person in
authority ,or if the confession is not tainted with any other cause making it invalid or untrustworthy ,do
not become irrelevant merely because it was made-
1. Under a promise or secrecy,or
2. In consequence of a deception practiced upon the accused
3. When he was drunk or
4. In answer to questions which he need not have answered whatever be the form of the question,or
5. Without warning that he was not bound to make the confession and that evidence of it might be given
against him.`

PROMISE OF SECRECY: A confession obtained from the accused by a promise of secrecy is

relevant. For example: A was in custody on a charge of Murder .B a fellow prisoner said to him ‘I wish
you would tell me how you murdered that boy ; B replied , “Will you be on your oath not to mention
what i tell u” .A promised on his oath that he would not tell anybody .B then made the statement .It was
held that B’s confession was admissible against him.42
DECEPTION: Where a confession is obtained by deception ,it is admissible in
evidence .A turnkey promised to post a letter given to him by a prisoner and addressed to prisoner’s
father .The letter contained a confession , and turnkey instead of putting it into
the post sent it to the prosecution. It was held that the letter was admissible in evidence and the way in
which it came into prosecutor’s possession was immaterial.
42
REX V. SHAW, 6c and p. 372

33
DRUNKENNESS: The fact that a person was drunk or that he was made to drink with a view to extract
a confession from him is immaterial and a confession made by him in such a condition would be
admissible against him. But statements made by person in sleep are not receivable in evidence. What a
person has been heard to say while talking in his sleep, is not evidence against him however valuable it
may be as indicative evidence,for in such a case ,the suspension of the faculty of judgement may fairly
be presumed complex.

CONFESSION IN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS:

A confession does not become inadmissible merely because it is elicited in answers to question put to
the accused .Any person except police may be interrogator ,as under section 25 and 26 ,no confession
made to the police is admissible .In England ,this limitation does not exist and a confession in answers to
questions by te polie is in strit law admissible.43
WANT OF WARNING OR CAUTION: A voluntary confession does not become inadmissible merely
because the maker was not warned before that it might be used against him as evidence .Section 164(3)
of the criminal procedure code requires that a magistrate shall ,before recording any confession,
explained to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession , and that if he does so, it
may be used as evidence against him. This infact is a warning .The code of criminal procedure is a
special enactment applicable only to certain statements made in the particular circumstances
contemplated by Section 164 .It cannot override the general provisions of section 29 except where these
circumstances bring the section into operation .

43
Rex v. darrington, 2c, and p. 418

34
SECTION 30

CONSIDERATION OF PROVED CONFESSION AFFECTING PERSON MAKING IT

AND OTHERS JOINTLY UNDER TRIAL FOR SAME OFFENCE:
When more person 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 .
Explanation :-
“Offence” as used in this section includes the abetment of, attempt to commit , the offence
This section is an exception to the general rule of English Common Law that a confession is only
evidence against the confessor and not against others. When a person admits his guilt and exposes
himself to the pains and penalties provided therefore there is a guarantee for his truth. The guarantee
however is a very weak one, for if the act of self-implication is not in all cases a guarantee of the truth of
a statement even as against the person making it, much less is it so as against another. While such a
confession deserves ordinarily very little reliance it is nevertheless impossible for a judge to ignore it,
and he need no longer pretend to do so, the provisions of this section being inserted for the purpose of
relieving him from the attempt to perform an intellectual impossibility. This section makes a departure
from the common law of England under which the confession of an accused person is only evidence
against himself and cannot be used against the others.44
In order to apply section 30,the following conditions must be fulfilled:
1. More persons than one are being tried jointly;
2. They are so tried for the same offence
3. A confession must be made by one of such accused persons affecting himself and some other of such
persons and it must be legally proved.

If all the above conditions are satisfied ,then the court may take into consideration such confession as
against such other person as well as against the maker of such confession.45

44
Supra 7 pg no. 157
45
S.d basu , law of evidence, allahabhd law book publishers, 2 nd edition

35
 Before a statement of one of the accused persons can be taken into consideration against the other
accused under section 30 of the Act, the following ingredients/conditions must be fulfilled :-
1. There must be joint trial for the same offence.
2. It must be a confession
3. The confession of guilt must affect himself and others i.e. implicate the maker substantially to the
same extent and the other accused.
4. The confession of guilt must be duly proved.

All the conditions should exist at a time and if any of the conditions is missing in a case this section had
no applicability and the accused cannot be roped.46
ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSION OF A CO-ACCUSED WHO PLEADS GUILTY:
The question as to when a joint trial terminates becomes material when one of the co-accused pleads
guilty .The position varies with the category of the three-fold type of trial namely:
(1) Warrant trial
(2) Sessions trial
(3) Summons trial

JOINT-TRIAL –WARRANT CASES

In a warrant case the trial covers the whole of the proceedings. Therefore a confession made by an
accused in the course of a trial of a warrant case by a magistrate, in which the confession implicates
himself and the others who are being tried with him, is admissible against the latter even if the
confession takes the form of a plea of guilty.
JOINT TRIAL-SESSIONS CASE
In Session cases, however the plea of accused is recorded at the very outset and the trial starts after the
plea is recorded .If the accused pleads guilty at the outset and is convicted on his plea ,the trial as against
him comes to an end .Therefore when one of the accused person is committed to the court of sessions ,
some plead guilty, and the plea being accepted , they are convicted, they can no longer be treated as
being jointly tried with the rest of the accused who

46
Supra 8 pg no. 541

36
 have not pleaded guilty and against whom the case proceeds and any confession made by the former
will not be admissible against the latter.
CONFESSION OF CO-ACCUSED
When more than one persons are being jointly tried for one and the same offence or offences they are
called co-accused .Any one of them is at liberty to confess to his own guilt and his confession will have
the full force of evidence against him. But when he records a confession implicating himself as well his
other co-accused , that is called the confession of a co-accused and the question arises what is its value
against the other non-confessing co accused .
TRIED JOINTLY
The words ‘tried jointly’ mean legally tried jointly and not simply tried jointly as a matter of fact. Thus,
if one of the accused pleads guilty and his plea is accepted ,he cannot be said to be tried jointly with the
others. A and B were charged with murder ; A pleaded guilty ,but was not convicted or sentenced till the
conclusion of trial of B .A pleaded guilty ,his trial ,in the sense of trial of his guilt or innocence ended
,though the question of sentence which was a different matter remained .It was held that A had pleaded
guilty ,he could not be treated as being jointly tried with B .A’s confession were , therefore, inadmissible
against B.47
FOR THE SAME OFFENCE
For using confession of one accused against the other only their joint trial is not necessary. It
is also necessary that they should be tried for the same offence .The expression “same offence” in
section 30 means the identical offence and does not mean offence of same kind .Offences are of the
same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of IPC
or any special law. If two persons are charged under section 325 IPC they are said to be charged with the
same offence. A is charged under section 325 IPC for having caused grievous injury to B ,C is charged
for having caused grievous injury to G . Suppose A and G are tried jointly and A makes the confession
to effect that he cause grievous hurt to B .This confession of A cannot be used against C because they
are not tried for the same offence. But if A and G are tried jointly and both of them are charged for
having grievous injury to B and if A makes a statement that he and C caused grievous hurt to B ,the

47
Supra 102, pg no. 159

37
 statement may be used against both of them .Section 30 does not cover different offences in the same
transactions by different persons.
CONFESSION OF DIFFERENT OFFENCES COMMITTED IN SAME TRANSACTION
If different offences are committed in the course of same transaction and many persons are tried jointly
for different offences, the confession of one of such persons cannot be used against the others. Where
two persons are tried jointly but one is charged with offences under section 372 and the other under
section 373 of IPC , a confession made by one of them cannot be admitted against the other under
Section 30 of Evidence Act. When two persons are accused for an offence under section 411 IPC and
another of offence under section 457 IPC the offence arising out of same transaction ,it was held that the
confession of the third accused would not be used under section 30,Evidence Act against the other two
accused.
Where 3 accused persons are tried jointly two of whom were charged for offences under section 302 and
457 IPC and the third offence under section 411 IPC ,it was held that the confession of the third accused
would not be taken into consideration to determine the guilt of the first two accused . A number of
persons were charged under section 302 IPC .One of them was charged for offence under section 201 of
IPC ,the confession of the latter of the offence under section 201 IPC cannot be taken into account
against the other accused with regard to charge under section 302.[batuk]
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION OF CO-ACCUSED
Section 30 does not say that the confession of one accused will be evidence against the co- accused .It
only says that the court may take into consideration such confessions. The confession of a co-accused is
not evidence. No conviction can be based upon it solely. It can be used only to corroborate other
evidence. It might assist the court in coming to the conclusion that the other evidence is true and
therefore an accused is guilty. The conviction must be based on other evidence .The confession can only
be used to help to satisfy a court that the other evidence is true.
The court cannot start with the confession of the accused. It must begin with the other evidence adduced
by the prosecution and after forming the opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said
evidence ,it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of the
guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence.48

48
Panchu v. state of Haryana AIR 2012 SC 523

38
CONFESSION AFFECTING HIMSELF AND SOME OTHER OF SUCH PERSONS:TEST OF
ADMISSIBILITY
The test to determine whether a statement amounts to a confession under section 30 is whether the
statement by itself is sufficient for the conviction of its maker of the offence for which he is tried jointly
with those against whom that statement is sought to be given .The confession of a co-accused can be
taken into consideration if it fulfils the conditions laid down in Section 30 .One of the condition is that
the confession must implicate the maker substantially to the same extent as the other accused person
against whom it is sought to be taken into consideration .If on reading the confession as a whole, it
appears that the maker was trying to throw the main blame on his companion and to make out that he
himself was an unwilling spectator of the crime ,the confession cannot at all be taken into consideration
against the co-accused.

39