Section 164 CrPC- Recording of Confessional Statement

 Evidentiary value of confessional statement under section 164 CrPC

The confession, if voluntary and credible, is considered to be the best and most
conclusive piece of evidence as it is presumed that ‘no person will make a false
statement incriminating him’. Conviction can be based solely on confession if the
court is satisfied with voluntariness and trustworthiness of confession. The level of
satisfaction of court must be of high degree. The court must satisfy itself as to
willingness on the part of accused making confession because confession may not
always be voluntary and true. Sometimes it may be because of mental aberration,
vanity, to escape physical and moral torture etc. which reduces its probative value.
Therefore, a legal duty has been cast upon the court to ascertain whether confession
made by the accused is voluntary or not.
Though, there is no rule of law which says that conviction cannot be based upon
uncorroborated confession however, as a matter of prudence it is usually considered
safe to look at confession in the light of all of the evidence on record. In
Muthuswamy v State of madras , AIR 1954 SC 4 the court observed that confession
should not be accepted merely because it contains a wealth of details. Unless the main
features of the story are shown to be true, it would not be safe, as a matter of
prudence, to base a conviction on confession by itself. Para 6 & 8 “….not be accepted
merely because it contains a wealth of details which could not have been invented.
Unless the main features of the story are shown to be true, it is unsafe to regard mere
wealth of uncorroborated detail as a safeguard of truth.”

 Procedure to record a confessional statement

 The procedure established under section 164 of crpc and parts of section 281
for recording of confessional statement shall be followed for it to be
admissible as evidence.
 Magistrate before recording the confessional statement shall explain to the
person that he is not bound to make a confession and if the person does
confess, it shall be used as evidence against him.
 The person confessing shall not be compelled to do so and should be
voluntary.
  At the time of recording the confession of the accused no Police or Police official
shall be present. Before proceeding towards the recording of a confession , a enquiry
must be made from the accused just to confirm the overall past situation of an
accused under the custody and the treatment he had been receiving in such custody it
will help to ensure that confession made by accused person is free from any type of
extraneous influence (Rabindra Kumar Pal alias Dara Singh v. Republic of India
(2011) SCC 490 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 706 ) para 64

 Certifying by the magistrate that he “hoped” not that he “believed”, the

confession made by the accused person voluntary, would suggest a remaining
doubt and hence not accepted.  Chandran v. State of T.N. (1978) 4 SCC 90:
1978 SCC (Cri) 528 (Paras 31 to 33)
 Confession should record by the magistrate only in open Court and during
Court hours and confession should be signed by the accused and magistrate as
per section 281(5) Cr.P.C. The confession shall be recorded in the language in
which the accused is questioned or if that is not practicable, in the language of
the Court as per Section 281(3) Cr.P.C.)
 Circumstances under which court may rely on a confessional statement
 Retracted confession
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. MOHD. AJMAL MOHD. AMIR
KASAB [Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2010] (2012) 9 SCC 1
 Retracted Judicial confession – Reliability of – The Court held
that reliance can be placed even on retracted confession if it is satisfactorily
established that the confession is true and voluntary and corroborated on all
material particulars – It is open for the Court to reject exculpatory facts and take
into consideration inculpatory facts out of the same. [Paras 123 and 127]
 Principles as regards evidentiary value of confessional
statement: [Para 126]
1. A confession can be acted upon, if the court is satisfied that it is true and
voluntary.
2. It must fit into the proved facts and must not run counter to it.
3. The court may take into account the retracted confession, if the court is satisfied
that retraction was an afterthought.  
4. A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction, if the court is
satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made.
5. It is not the rule of law, but a rule of prudence that a court shall not base a
conviction on a retracted confession without corroboration.
6. It cannot, however, be laid down as an inflexible rule of practice or prudence
that under no circumstances can such conviction be made without corroboration.
In a given case, a court may be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession
and prepared to act upon it without corroboration.
7. It is, however, unsafe to rely upon a confession much less a retracted confession,
unless the court is satisfied that it is true and voluntarily made and has been
corroborated in material particulars.
8. Corroboration in material particulars does not imply that there should be
meticulous examination of the entire material particulars. It is enough that there
is broad corroboration in conformity with the general trend of the confession.
9. If after examining and comparing the confession with the rest of the evidence, in
the light of surrounding circumstances and probabilities of each case, the
confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and it naturally fits in
with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it can be taken
to be true and trustworthy.
10. The whole of the confession should be tendered in the court. It is not the law that
it can either be taken as a whole or not at all. It may be open to the court to reject
the exculpatory part and take into consideration the inculpatory part. Where a
confession or an admission is separable, there can be no objection to taking one
part into consideration which appears to be true and reject the other part which is
false.
11. Whether a confession is voluntary or not is a question of fact and such a finding
should not be interfered with unless the court is satisfied that it has been reached
without applying the true and relevant tests in the matter.
 Extra-JUDICIAL Confession
 In the case of Jagta Vs. State, AIR 1974 SC 1545, it has been
held that evidence of Extra-judicial confession in the very nature of thi
ngs is a
weak piece of evidence. However, it is not open to any court to start wi
 th a presumption that extra-
judicial confession is weak type of evidence.
 Podyami sukada v. State of Madhya Pradesh

*NOTE* Under Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, a Court is

bound to presume that a statement or confession of an accused person,
taken in accordance with law and purporting to be signed by any Judge
or Magistrate, is genuine, and that the certificate or note as to the
circumstances under which it was taken purporting to be made by the
person signing it, are true, and that such statement or confession was
duly taken. The words “taken in accordance with law” occurring in this
section are particularly important and it is essential that in recording a
statement or confession under Section 164, the provisions of that
section should be strictly followed. The evidential value of a
confession depends upon its voluntary character and the precision with
which it is reproduced and hence the section provides safeguards to
secure this end. These safeguards are of great importance, as
confessions are often retracted at a later stage and it becomes necessary
for the Court to ascertain whether the alleged confession was actually
and voluntarily made. The mere fact that a confession is retracted does
not render it in admissible in evidence, but the Court has to scrutinise
any such confession with the utmost care and accept it with the greatest
caution. It is a settled rule of evidence that unless a retracted
confession is corroborated in material particulars it is not prudent to
base a conviction in a criminal case on its strength alone, (Puran, Son
of Sri Ram v. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1953 SC 459) unless from the
peculiar circumstances under which it was made or judging from the
reasons alleged or apparent, of retraction, there remains a high degree
of certainly that the confession, notwithstanding its having been resiled
from, is genuine. [Muthuswamy v. State of Madras].