1

“Confession: An Overview”

Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur

Faculty of Law
(Five Years’ Integrated Law Course)

(Project Submission 2014-15)

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Ms. Chandanbala Sandeep K Bohra
B.B.A. LL.B. Sem III
 Preface
The Law of Evidence is a vehicle enables
the justice dispensation mechanism to catch
up with fast paced rapid changes in the world.
It also requires fast pace evolution and
subject- specific tailoring so as to take care of
new situation, new offences, and new modes
of committing these offences. The Promotion
of accuracy in the decision making process is
the primary target meant to means to achieve
through the Law of Evidence.

In the law of criminal evidence, a confession

is a statement by a suspect in crime which is
adverse to that person. Some secondary
authorities, such as Black's Law Dictionary ,
define a confession in more narrow terms,
e.g.as "a statement admitting or
acknowledging all facts necessary for
conviction of a crime," which would be
distinct from a mere admission of certain facts
that, if true, would still not, by themselves,
satisfy all the elements of
the offense.
 Acknowledgement

The Project on “Law of Evidence”, is do

hereby submitted to the Law faculty of Jai
Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.
And it is purposely consecrate to Respected
Coordinator as well as teacher Ms.
Chandanbala and honourable Dean of the
faculty Mr. R.K Sinha.
 Index

Name of Topics
1. Introduction
2. Meaning and Definition
3. Kinds of Evidence
4. Relevancy of Confessions
5. Difference between Admission
and Confession
6. Case Study
7. Conclusion
 I. Introduction of Confession

The term confession is not defined anywhere in Indian

Evidence Act. But it is thought that an Admission in
case of a criminal matter is Confession.
The same was stated by STEPHEN in his digest that that a
confession is an admission made at anytime by a person
charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference
that he committed the crime1.
However, Privy Council, In case of Pakala Narayan
Swami vs Emperor AIR 1939, did not accept this
definition. In this case Lord ATKIN observed that no
statement that contains self exculpatory matter can
amount to a confession.
Further, a confession must either admit in terms of the
offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which
constitute the offence. An offence of a gravely
incriminating fact, is not in itself a confession. For
example, an admission that the accused is the over of and
was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which
caused death with no explanation of any other man's
possession, is not a confession even though it strongly
suggests that the accused has committed the murder 2.

1
Kassin, Saul M. (October 2008). "Confession Evidence: Commonsense Myths and
Misconceptions". Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(10): 1309–1322. doi:
10.1177/0093854808321557
2
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 24-26
 II. Meaning and Definition of Confession

A written document acknowledging an offense and signed

by the guilty party.3

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “Confession is

a statement made by an accused person
which is sought to be proved against him in criminal
proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by
him”.

According to Dr. Avatar Singh, “Confession is a direct

admission or acknowledgement of his guilty by a person
who has committed a crime. It may be judicial or extra-
judicial.4

Confession in S.25 of the Indian Evidence Act (1 of

1872); means, as in S.24 of the same Act.
A ‘Confession by an accused person’ which it is proposed
to prove against him to establish an offence.5

3
Advance English Dictionary
4
Dr. avtar singh, college law dictionary
5
As per Indian Evidence Act 1872
 III. Kinds of Evidence

A confession may occur in many forms. When it is made

to the court itself then it will be called judicial
confession. and when it is made to anybody outside the
court, in that case it will be called extra-judicial
confession. It may even consist of conversation to
oneself, which may be produced in evidence if overheard
by another.

1. Judicial Confession: Judicial confession are those

which are made before a magistrate or in court in the
due course of legal proceedings.

A judicial confession has been defined to mean “plea

of guilty on arrangement (made before a court) if
made freely by a person in a fit state of mind.

2. Extra-Judicial Confession: Extra-Judicial

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

An extra-judicial confession has been defined to

mean“ a free and voluntary confession of guilt by a
person accused of a crime in the course of
conversation with persons other than judge or
magistrate seized of the charge against himself 6.
6
M. Monir on law of evidence 1872, p.158 (15th edition)
 A man after the commission of a crime may write a
letter to his relation or friend expressing his
sorrow over the matter. This may amount to
confession. Extra-judicial confession can be
accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it
passes the test of credibility.
Extra-judicial confession is generally made before
private person which includes even judicial officer
in his private capacity. It also includes a magistrate
not empowered to record confessions under
section 164 of the Cr.P.C. or a magistrate so
empowered but receiving the confession at a stage
when section 164 does not apply.7

In case of Sahoo vs State of UP, AIR 1966, an accused

who was charged with murder of his daughter in law
with whom he was always quarreling was seen on the
day of the murder going out of the home saying
words to the effect, "I have finished her and with her
the daily quarrels.".
The statement was held to be a valid confession
because it is not necessary for the relevance of a
confession that it should communicate to some other
person.8

7
Russano, Melissa B.; Meissner, Narchet, Kassin (June 2005). "Investigating True and
False Confessions Within a Novel Experimental Paradigm". Psychological Science 16(6): 481–
486. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560
8
Sahoo v State of UP (Allahabad High Court) AIR 1966-www.indiankanoon.com\
 IV. Relevancy of Confession

Relevancy of confession or sort of matter(s) related to

confession is further classified in two forms:
Confession when not
relevant Confession when
relevant

Confession when not relevant:

A confession becomes irrelevant and thus,
inadmissible, in situations described in the Sections 24,
25, and 26.

1. Section 24 - Confession caused by

inducement, threat, or promise from a person
in authority –
Confession made by an accused is irrelevant in a criminal
proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the
court to have been caused by inducement, threat, or
promise, made by any person in authority and that in the
view of the court such inducement, threat, or promise
gives reasonable ground to the person that by making the
confession he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil
of a temporary nature in reference to the proceedings
against him.9
The following conditions are necessary to attract the
provisions of this section -:

9
Indian Evidence Act 1872 by M.P Tandon rev. by A.N Sen
 a) The confession must have been made because of
inducement, threat, or promise - A confession should be
free and voluntary. If it flows from fear or hope, it is
inadmissible. In deciding whether a particular confession
is because of threat, inducement, or promise, the question
has to be considered from the point of view of the accused
as to how the inducement, threat or promise would
operate in his mind.
For example, where the accused was told by the
magistrate, "tell me where the things are and I will
be favorable to you", it was held to be
inadmissible.10

b) The inducement, threat, or promise, must be

made by a person in authority - A person in
authority is not merely a police officer or a
magistrate but every such person who can
reasonably hold a sway over the investigation or
trial. Thus, government officials such as a senior
military officer, police constable, warden, clerk of
the court, all have been held to be a person in
authority. Even private persons such as the wife of
the employer was also held to be a person in
authority.11

c) It should relate to the charge in question -

This requirement is specifically stated in the
section, which says that the inducement must
have "reference to the charge against the
accused person". Thus, in the case of Empress
vs Mohan Lal, 1881.12

10
Digest of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1950-2010) by R. Ramchandran (Adv.)| Pg.
11
417-421 Digest of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1950-2010) by R. Ramchandran
12
(Adv.)| Pg. 421-422 Digest of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1950-2010) by R.
Ramchandran (Adv.)| Pg. 422
 d) It should hold out some material, worldly, or
temporal benefit or advantage - The inducement
should be about some tangible benefit. For
example, a reference to spiritual benefit such as,
taking an accused to a temple to confess does not
fall in this category but a promise to reduce the
sentence would fall under it.13

2. Confession to Police-
It is presumed that police holds a position of great
influence over the actions of the the accused and so there
is a high probability that confessions obtained by the
police are tainted with threat, or inducement. Further, it is
important to prevent the practice of oppression or torture
by the police to extract the confession. This principle is
espoused by Sections 25 and 26, which are as follows –
a) Section 25 - Confession to police-officer not to be
proved -No confession made to a police-officer
shall be proved as against a person accused of any
offence. This section is very broadly word. It
strictly disallows any confession made to the police
officer as inadmissible no matter what the
circumstances. As in the case of Raja Ram vs State
of Bihar, AIR 196414

b) Section 26 - Confession by accused while in

custody of police not to be proved against him
-No confession made by any person whilst he is in
the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in
the
13
Digest of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1950-2010) by R. Ramchandran (Adv.)| Pg. 422-423
14
The Indian Evidence Act- A critical commentary covering emerging issues and International Developments
by Dr. V. Nageshwara rao, with a forward by M. Jagannadha Rao| Pg. 300-305
 immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be
proved as against such person. This section further
tries to ensure that the confession is not extracted
due to the influence of the police. Any confession
made while the maker is in custody of the police is
invalid unless it is made in the immediate presence
of a magistrate. The presence of a magistrate is, by
a legal fiction, regarded as equivalent to removal
of police influence and the statement is therefore
considered to be free from police influence.

Mere absence of the police officer from a room

where confession is taken does not terminate his
custody of the accused. The word custody does
not just mean formal custody but includes such
state of affairs in which the accused can be said to
have come into the hands of a police officer or
can be said to have been under some sort of
surveillance or restriction.15

c) Section 27 provides another exception when a

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

15
The Indian Evidence Act- A critical commentary covering emerging issues and International Developments
by Dr. V. Nageshwara rao, with a forward by M. Jagannadha Rao| Pg. 305-307
 Constitutionality of Section 27- Indian Evidence
Act was written before the Constitution of India
and Article 20(3) of the constitution says that no
person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. This article seemingly made Section 27
unconstitutional. SC considered this issue in
the case of Nisa Sree vs State of Orissa AIR
1954,and held that it is not violative of Article
20(3). A confession may or may not lead to the
discovery of an increminating fact. If the
discovered fact is non incriminatory, there is no
issue and if it is self-incriminatory, it is
admissible if the information is given by the
accused without any threat.16

Confession when relevant:

The following three types of confession
are relevant and admissible –

1. Section 27 - Confession leading to a discovery -

Explained above.

2. Section 28 - Confessions made after removal

of threat -If the confession is obtained after the
impression caused by threat, inducement, or
promise is removed in the opinion of the court,
then the confession is admissible.17

16
The Indian Evidence Act- A critical commentary covering emerging issues and International Developments
by Dr. V. Nageshwara rao, with a forward by M. Jagannadha Rao| Pg. 306-308
17
The Indian Evidence Act- A critical commentary covering emerging issues and International Developments
by
Dr. V. Nageshwara rao, with a forward by M. Jagannadha Rao| Pg. 310
 3. Section 29 - Confession made under
promise, deception,etc. - If a confession is
otherwise relevant, it does not become
irrelevant merely because it was made -
(a) under a promise of secrecy or
(b) in consequences of a deception practiced on the
accused person for the purpose of obtaining it or
(c) while the accused was drunk or
(d) while answering the questions he need not have
answered or
(e) when the accused was not warned that he was
not bound to make such confession and that
evidence of it might be given against him.
The basis of this section is that any breach of
confidence or of good faith or practice of any
artifice does not invalidate a confession.
However, a confession obtained by mere trickery
does not carry much weight. For example, in one
case, an accused was told that somebody saw him
doing the crime and because of this the accused
made a confession. The court held the confession
as inadmissible.18

18
The Indian Evidence Act- A critical commentary covering emerging issues and International Developments
by Dr. V. Nageshwara rao, with a forward by M. Jagannadha Rao| Pg. 311-312
 V. Difference between Admission
and Confession:19
Admission
Admission usually relates to civil
transaction and comprises all
statements amounting to admission
defined under section 17 and made by
person mentioned under section 18,
19 and 20
Admissions are not conclusive as
to the matters admitted it may
operate as an estoppel.
Admissions may be used on behalf of
the person making it under the
exception of section 21 of evidence
act.
Admission by one of the several
defendants in suit is no evidence
against other defendants
Admission is statement oral or
written which gives inference about
the liability of person making
admission.
19
Digest of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1950-2010) by R. Ramchandran (Adv.)| Chapter II (On the relevancy
of facts: Admissions)
Confession
Confession is a statement made by an
accused person which is sought to be
proved against him in criminal
proceeding to establish the
commission of an offence by
him.
Confession if deliberately and
voluntarily made may be
accepted as conclusive of the matters
confessed.
Confessions always go against the
person making it.
Confessions made by one or two or
more accused jointly tried for the
same offence can be taken into
consideration against the co-accused
(section 30)
Confession is statement written or
oral which is direct admission of suit.
 VI. Case Study related to Confession

In Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the

extra judicial confession was made to Pradhan who
was accompanied by Police (enquiry) Officer. The only
interference which could be drawn from the
circumstance of the case, is that the confession was made
at the time when the accused was in the custody of police
and it could not be proved against the accused. It could
not be believed that, when a police officer has seen the
accused with deceased at last occasion, he will not take
the accused in the custody.
In the case it is evident that the Police Officer has created
a scene and to avoid Section 25 and 26, the Police Officer
has left the accused in the custody of village head man
(pradhan).
The Police Officer in this case has no difficulty to take
the accused to the Judicial Magistrate and to take extra-
judicial confession under section 164 of Cr.P.C which
has got more probable value and it gives an
opportunity to make the required warning, that this
confession will be used against the accused and after
this warning he records the confession.
Under section 26, no confession made by an accused
to any person while in custody of a police officer shall
be proved against him.20

20
http://www.westlaw.com
 Other relevant cases:
1. State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh And Others on 16
August, 1963.
2. Shankar vs State Of T.N on 4 April, 1994

VII. Conclusion

This change in the Evidence Act is necessary

so as to invigorate the trust and faith of the
people of India in the Judiciary that they will be
provided imparted speedy justice to the wrongs
done to them by any person. The draft Criminal
Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003 in its statement of
objects and reasons mentions that the disposal
of criminal trials in the courts takes considerable
time and that in many cases trial do not commence
for as long as 3 to 5 years after the accused was
remitted to judicial custody. In lieu of this, it is
pertinent that provisions of Criminal Law be
changed so as to reduce the time needed for a
common person to get justice. After all “Justice
should not only be done, but also be seen to be
done”.
 Bibliography

1. Indian Evidence Act 1872 with 25th Amendment 2013

2. Universal’s Criminal Manual
3. M. Monir on Indian Evidence Act 1872
4. The Indian Evidence Act- A critical
commentary covering emerging issues and
International Developments by Dr. V.
Nageshwara rao, with a forward by M.
Jagannadha Rao
5. Police and Criminal Evidence
6. Digest of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1950-2010) by R.
Ramchandran (Adv.)
7. Halsbury Law of India
8. Indian Evidence Act 1872 by M.P Tandon rev. by A.N
Sen
9. Black’s Law dictionary
10. Avtar singh on evidence law
11. http://www.advocatekhoj.com
12. http://www.indiankanoon.com
13. http://www.britanica_encyclopædia.com/criminol
ogy/confessions
14. Advanced English Dictionary