Relevancy of Confession

Irrelevant -Confessions
◦ “Confession” is species of “Admission”, it is dealt within sections 24 to 30.These sections suggest the circumstances when a confession made b
y a person can be used against him or against some other person or just can not be used.
◦ the confession of an accused may be classified into Voluntary and non-voluntary confession. A confessions made before court freely is
voluntary confession which is admissible. A confession to the police officer is the confession made by the accused while in the custody of a
police officer and never relevant and can never be proved under Section 25 and 26

Relevancy
Confessions

Irrelevant confession –sec Conditional Relevant confession – sec

24,25&26 relevancy sec27 28,29 & 30

Non voluntary/
extrajudicial
WHEN CONFESSION NOT RELEVANT AND IN ADMISSIBLE IN LAW
◦ Section 24 of the Evidence Act lays down the rule for the exclusion of the confession which are made non-voluntarily..
◦ If a confession comes within the four corners of Section 24 is irrelevant and cannot be used against the maker..
◦ ingredients of Section 24
To attract the prohibition enacted in Section 24 the following facts must be established:
• That the statement in question is a confession,
• That such confession has been made by the accused,
• That it has been made to a person in authority,
• That the confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement, threat or promise, proceeding from a person in authority,
• Such inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused, and
• The inducement, threat or promise must in the opinion of the court be sufficient to give the accused ground, which would appear to him
reasonable, for supporting that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the
proceedings against him.
◦ A confession should be free and voluntary .
◦ It is necessary that all the conditions must exist cumulatively. Further, this section merely requires that if it "appears to the court" that the
confession was improperly obtained, it becomes inadmissible.
Case laws
◦ A strict meaning of the expression “person in authority” was given by the Patna High Court in Santokhi Beldar v. King
Emperor, AIR 1933 Patna 149held as follows: “There is no statutory definition of the words “person in authority”, but it is
well established that the words have reference to a person who has authority to interfere in the matter under enquiry.
The reported cases on the point show that generally speaking “person in authority” within the meaning of Section 24 is
one who is engaged in the apprehension, detention or prosecution of the accused or one who is empowered to examine
him.”
◦ Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan . If a friend of the accused induces him to make a confession or a relation if he makes him
a promise that if he confesses he will get him released or even if he threatens him and the accused on that account
admits his guilt this statement will not be excluded by Section 24 as the threat, inducement or promise do not emanate
from a person in authority.
Section 28- 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 under section 28.
◦ Section 28 provides that if there is inducement, threat or promise given to the accused in order to obtain confession of guilt from him but
the confession is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the court been fully
removed, the confession will be relevant becomes pre and voluntary.
◦ It must be borne in mind that there must be strong and cogent evidence that the influence of the inducement has really ceased.
◦ Impression produced by promise or threat may be removed
• By lapse of time, or
• By an intervening caution giving by some person of superior authority to the person holding out the inducement, where a prisoner
confessed some months after the promise and after the warning his confession was receive.
◦ By a supervening event-when inducement , threat or promise is breaks on account of supervening act, then the impression said to have
been fully removed ..
◦ Vali lsa Mahmud Vs State (AIR 1989)-
◦ if there is a long interval between inducement and making of confession, it cannot be said that the impression continues to operate on
the mind of the accused and such confession can be made admissible u/s 28.
Confession to police- sec 25&26 not admissible
◦ 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.
◦ The rule of total exclusion of custodial confession from evidence.as enacted under Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act on the f
ace of it, shows a serious concern of legislature for protection against police brutality.
◦ If confessions to police were allowed to be proved in evidence, the police would torture the accused and thus force him to
confess to a crime which he might not have a committed. A confession so obtained would naturally be unreliable. It would not
would be voluntary.
◦ Any confessional statement given by accused before police is inadmissible evidence and cannot be brought on record
by the prosecution and is insufficient to convict the accused; Ram Singh v.State of Maharashtra, 1999
Cr LJ 3763 (Bom). If the first information report is given by the accused to police officer and amounts to a confessional statement,
proof of the confession is prohibited by section 25
◦ in R v. Murugan Ramasay, (1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.) at 268
Police authority itself, however, carefully controlled, carries a menace to those brought suddenly under its shadow and the law
recognizes and provides against the danger of such persons making incriminating confessions with the intention of placating
authority and without regard to the truth of what they are saying.
 Cases- laws – not police officers under sec 25
◦ In State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram[1962] 3 SCR 338 , the status of custom officers under Sea Customs Act, 1878, for the purpose of section 25 was
discussed. Subbarao J. offered a definition to solve the quandary: “An officer, by whatever designation he is called, on whom a statute substantially
confers the powers and imposes the duties of the police, is a police officer within the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act.” But the majority
disagreed and Dayal J. said that for someone to be considered a police officer, investigative powers must be conferred with the purpose of detecting
and preventing crime in society. Since customs officers were conferred these powers to check smuggling of goods and evasion of duties, possessing
similar powers as the police did not make them police officers.
◦ In Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore [1966] 3 SCR 698 (‘Badku’), the bench of higher strength (five judges) settled the issue by deciding the status of
central excise officers under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Unanimously, these officers were held to not be police officers. The Supreme Court
laid down a definitive test: the power to file a charge-sheet, as under section 173 of Cr.P.C., on which cognizance could be taken by a Magistrate. Thus
only those officers who had been conferred this power could appropriately be called police officers for section 25. In Balkishan Devidayal v. State of
Maharashtra[9], the test was used to hold section 25 inapplicable to confessions made before Railway Protection Force officers.
◦ Special Legislation
A special legislation may change the system of excluding police confessions. For example, under the Territorists and Disruptive Activities(prevention)
Act, 1987, (S15) confessional statements were not excluded from evidence on grounds that the persons making them were in police custody. The court
said in another case that section 15 was an important departure from the ordinary law and must receive that interpretation which would achieve the
object of that provision was that a confession recorded under S.15 of TADA was a substantive piece of evidence and could be used against a co-
accused also
Confession Of An Accused In Police Custody-is
irrelevant -Sec 26
◦ Section 26 provides that a confession which is made in custody of a police officer cannot be proved against him. Unless it
is made before a magistrate.
◦ The object of section 26 of the Evidence Act is to prevent the abuse of theirpowers by the police, and hence confessions ma
de by accused persons while 10 in custody of police cannot be proved against them unless made in presence of
a magistrate. The custody of a police officer provides easy opportunity ofcercion for extorting confession obtained from acc
used persons through any undue influence being received in evidence against him.
◦
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.
If Confessional statements recorded before magistrate – sec164 of CrPc is admissible.
 Conditional Relevancy – How Much Of Information
Received From Accused May Be Proved-Sec27
◦ CONFESSIONS WHEN RELEVANT –
◦ The following three types of confession are relevant and admissible
Following conditions are necessary for the application of section 27 1.
1.fact must have been discovered in the consequence of the information received from the accused.
◦ 2. The person giving the information must be accused of an offence.
3. He must be in custody of a police officer.
◦ 4. That portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact
discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.
◦ 5. Before the statement is proved, somebody must depose that articles werediscovered in consequence of the information
received from the accused
Before the statement of the accused could be proved, somebody, such a subinspector, must depose that in consequence of the given in
formation given by the accused, some facts were discovered.
◦ 6. The fact discovered must be a relevant fact, that is, to say it must relate to the commission of the crime in question.
Case - laws
In Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, it was held by Supreme Court that section 27 of evidence act was
enacted as proviso to. The provisions of sections of Section 25 and 26, which imposed a complete ban on admissibility of
any confession made by accused either to police or at any one while in police custody. Nonetheless the ban would be lifted
if the statement is distinctly related to discovery of facts. The object of making provision in section 27 was to permit a certain
portion of statement made by an accused to Police Officer admissible in evidence whether or not such statement is
confessional or non confessional or nonconfessional.
 Sec 29
◦ Section 29-Confession Otherwise Relevant Not To Become Irrelevant Because Of Promise Of Secrecu, Etc
◦ CONFESSION ON PROMISE OF SECRECY, ETC- section 29 lays down that if a confession is relevant, that is, if it is not excluded from being
proved by any other provision on Indian Evidence Act, it cannot be relevant if it was taken from the accused by:
1. Giving him promise of secrecy, or
2. By deceiving him, or
3. When he was drunk, or
4. Because it was made clear in answer to question which he need not have answered, or because no warning was given that he was not
bound to say anything and that whatever he will state will be used against him.
◦ Even though Sec 164 Crpc procedure is not followed, Still that Confessional statement is considered relevant.
◦ Section 30- Consideration Of Proved Confession Affecting Person Making It And Others Jointly Under Trial For The Same Offence-
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one such persons affecting himself
and some other such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as
against the person who makes such confession..

◦ The first 3 sections i.e 24, 25 & 26 deals with irrelevancy of Confessions , where as sections 28,29,&30
deals with relevancy of confesssions. Section 27 deals with conditional relevancy of confession .