CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR (DEPARTMENT

OF LAW)

Subject- CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE

ADMINISTRATION

TOPIC

Confession and Rule of Evidence

SUBMITTED TO: Prof. P.K. Mishra

Submitted By- Rahul Abhishek

Enrolment No. CUSB2013131025

LL.M. First Semester

Session; 2020-21

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1. (CONFESSION: TRADITIONAL AND STATUTORY DIMENSION)

CHAPTER 2 (EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION)

CHAPTER 3(69th LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA REPORT ON SECTION 29 OF

INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT)

CASE STUDY

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

2|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Apart from the efforts of the researcher, the success of the project depends largely on the
encouragement and guidelines of many others. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to
the people who have been instrumental in the successful completion of this project.

It is a fact that any research work prepared, compiled or formulated in isolation is inexplicable to
an extent. This research work, although prepared by me, is a culmination of efforts of a lot of
people.

Firstly, I Firstly, I would like to thank our Faculty of “CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL
JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION.” Prof. P.K. Mishra for giving me a topic related to “Confession
and Rule of Evidence” to research which assisted me in acquiring some knowledge about the
topic. I would like to thank him for his valuable suggestions towards the making of this project.

I hereby declare that the project work has used the works of various scholars which has
gratuitously acknowledged in the citation.

-- - Rahul Abhishek

3|Page
INTRODUCTION

The law of evidence has been described as the “engine room” or “power house” of both
substantive and procedural law1. Evidence is concerned with proving or disproving of fact or
facts, the foremost question that arises from this therefore is how a claim or guilt can be
established. This question hence, necessitates the main aim of writing this project, which is to
consider deception practiced on the accuse by the police officer. In this same vein, this work will
exhaustively treat what constitute the doctrine of confession in respect to their definitions which
has been variously viewed by authors and jurists2.

Confession plays a pivotal role in the pursuit of a criminal trial, the foundation of which rests on
truth and accuracy. It is an acknowledgement of guilt by the accused. The truthfulness of the
confession runs in favor of the accused, as the logical fallout dictates that it flows from the
strongest sense of guilt, thus, must be given the highest credit.

Confession has its origin in the common law of England dating back to the 14th century when
the king’s justices had evidence as to whether a confession was extorted 3. Also at this time, the
predominant method of making an accused give in to trial was torturing him. The practice
followed in this trend until the 18th century when an absolute revulsion took place, this revulsion
led to the total exclusion of confession on the basis of inducement and undue influence by show
of authority and intimidation. By the middle of the 19th century, England witnessed a complete
turn-around which placed its law of confession on its present footing4.

Confession in the day to usage connotes telling the truth about a situation. In other words it is a
statement a person makes admitting that they are guilty of a crime. In legal parlance however, a
confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating and
suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. Out of the various means by which

1
Shaheen Banoo, Confession Under Indian Evidence Act, 1872- a Critique,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669253, accessed on 10/02/2021
2
Lawn, confession time difference and admissibility, https://www.lawnn.com/confession/, accessed on 10/02/2021
3
Anonymous, confession and admissibility, http://www.shareyouressays.com/120428/section-29-of-the-indian-
evidence-act-1872/, accessed on 10/02/2021.
4
ibid

4|Page
criminal cases are established, confessional statement are usually the best for various reasons one
of which is that they help in arriving at a just and speedy judgment.

Confession of witnesses and the accused is a very important determinant in the pronouncement
of guilt in a Criminal Justice Trial. The scope and the parameters of ‘Confession’ and the
confessional statements have traveled beyond the boundaries of the traditional Sections 24, 25,
27 and Sections 161, 164, 167 in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 respectively5.

With the emergence of new scientific techniques like Brain Fingerprinting, Brain Mapping,
Narco- Analysis, Lie detectors, etc. for tracing the exact information for purposes of
corroboration of information and admissibility as piece of evidence in the cases, a need for
bringing changes in both the provisions of Procedural Codes above mentioned is an emerging
thought. Further ‘Confession’ is a concept closely interrelated to the concerns of Part III rights
enshrined in the Constitution of India, under Article 20(3), 21 etc 6. The gross misuse of the
powers of the investigating agencies (police) and the abuse of counter- terrorism laws in the
country like the (repealed) POTA and TADA which are now struck for the gross violation of
Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and 21 due to their inherent vagaries (Sec. 32 of POTA and
Sec. 15 of TADA) from the rights of accused under the Indian Evidence Act, 18727. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has accepted fact that ‘Confessional Statements’ due effect the entire
findings and decisions of the Criminal Trials. Thus in various case laws the Courts in India the
importance of Voluntary Confessions, Prevention of Retraction from Confessions, avoiding
duress and use of 3rd degree force by the police while the accused is in custody. The importance
of confessional statement by the witnesses is reflected in the Supreme Courts concern to bring in
Witness Protection Mechanism for purposes of the criminal justice system.

5
Anonymous, Confession and its kind ,http://www.lawnotes.in/Section_29_of_Indian_Evidence_Act,_1872/,
accessed on 12/02/ 2021.
6
Anonymous, nia government report, http://www.nia.gov.in/acts/IndianEvidenceActwithIndianEvidence
%28Amendment%29Act2002.pdf, accessed on 12/02/2021.
7
M.Mano, K.Roja, A comparative study between admission and confession, https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-
5/2/122.pdf, accessed on 12/02/2021.

5|Page
Recent developments in the domain of “Confession” are many; the famous Malimath Committee
reflects the thoughtful concerns on the same in the report on Criminal Reforms8.

This above highlighted reactionist approach of the various law making, law enforcing and law
interpreting agencies is triggered by the crucial fact that now both the terrorist as well as the
criminals have become much smarter and trickier whereby they developing string immunities to
the tactics of the investigating agencies. This need of the hour for the investigating and law
enforcing agencies can be elucidated by very recent examples of criminals like that of the Attack
on the Parliament, the master- servant duo in Nithari Killings, the Afzan Guru Criminal trials.
Etc9.

Method of Research

The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has used
secondary and primary sources to answer the statement of the problem. The researcher has made
extensive use of the library and also the internet sources.

Aims and Objectives:

The aim of the project is to present a detailed study of the “deception practiced by the police on
accused while obtaining confession”. It further aims to study its judicial interpretation in today’s
scenario and its constitutional validity under Indian Constitution.

Scope and Limitations:

The project deals with deception practiced by the police on accused while obtaining confession
in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Code of Criminal procedure, 1973.

Sources of Data:

The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

 Books
 Websites
8
Ibid.
9
Supra note 6.

6|Page
Method of Writing:

The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

Mode of Citation:

The researcher has followed a uniform mode of citation throughout the course of this research
paper

7|Page
CHAPTER I- CONFESSION: TRADITIONAL AND
STATUTORY DIMENSION

The term confession is nowhere defined in the Evidence Act. All the provisions relating to
confessions occur under the heading of ‘admission’. The definition of admission as given in
Section 17 becomes applicable to confession also. Section 17 defines admission as “a statement
oral or documentary which suggests any inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact.” A
confession therefore is a “voluntary admission of guilt of a criminal offence” in which the person
charged with a crime “acknowledges that he is guilty of committing that crime”. In order to
amount a “confession” it must be a direct admission or acknowledgment of his guilt. Sir James
Stephen in his “digest of the Law of Evidence” defined confession: “As an admission made at
the time by a person charged with the crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed
a crime. A voluntary statement by a person charged with the commission of a crime or
misdemeanor communicated to another person wherein he acknowledges himself to be guilty of
the offence charged and discloses the circumstances of the act or the share and participation he
had in it10.

Inculpatory and Exculpatory Statements11:-

A self-exculpatory statement obviously cannot amount to a confession. It has been held in Pati
Soura v. State,16 that a statement that contains self-inculpatory matter (case of self-defence)
does not amount to confession if the exculpatory part relates to some fact which if true would
negative the offence alleged to be confessed”. A fully self-inculpatory statement admitting all
ingredients of the offence would on the other hand be a clear confession. The difficulty arises
only in case of statements which are partly self-exculpatory and partly inculpatory.

Confessions : “Plenary” and “Not Plenary12”

A “Plenary” confession is when a self-deserving statement is such as if believed to be conclusive

against the person making it, at least one the physical facts of the matter to which it relates. In

10
Anonymous, Confession and admission in trial, http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.219(As%20Per
%20Workshop%20List%20title%20no219%20pdf).pdf, accessed on 12/02/2021.
11
Ibid
12
Supra note 10.

8|Page
such cases the proof is in the nature of direct evidence a confession “Not Plenary” is where the
truth of the self-deserving statement is not absolutely inconsistent with the existence of a state of
facts different from that which it indicates but only gives rise to presumptive inference of their
truth and is therefore in the nature of circumstantial evidence.13

Two kinds of Confessions – Judicial and Extra-Judicial14

Confessions may be divided into two classes namely, Judicial and Extra-judicial.

Judicial confessions are those which are made before the Magistrate in due course of legal
proceedings e.g. confessions recorded under Sections 164, 364 and 242 of the Code or Criminal
Procedure. It is however, essential that they be made or the free will of the party and with full
knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confessions.

Extra-Judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before a
Magistrate or in court. This term embracing not only express confession of crime but all those
admissions and acts of the accused from which guilt may be implied. Thus confessions whether
judicial or extra-judicial must be voluntary and genuine and besides, should have some
corroboration to be relied upon and to be the basis of a conviction. Therefore, the circumstances
under which the confession is made the manner in which it is made the person to whom it is
made are aspects to be borne in mind before acting on a confession, particularly on a non-judicial
confession.

(1)Whether the evidence of confession is reliable.

(2) Whether it finds corroboration.

The Importance of Confessions in Criminal Trials – Exception to the Rule Against Hearsay

The general English rule that hearsay is no evidence has been enacted in Section 60 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The term ‘hearsay’ is generally used to indicate the evidence which does not
derive its value from the credit given to the witness himself but which rests also in part al the

13
Anonymous, types of confession, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l256-Critical-Analysis-on-
Confession.html , accessed on 12/02/2021.

14
Ibid.

9|Page
veracity and competence of some other person. Hearsay evidence is considered untrustworthy
since the original maker of the statement is not before the court as a witness. The time lag before
the statement is repeated in the court may introduce distortions. Further the original declarant
was not put on oath before making the statement and he is not available in the court or cross-
examination.15

Law Relating to Exclusion of Involuntary Confessions16

Section 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act deal with admissibility of confession made by an
accused during the investigation of a criminal case under certain circumstances. Section 24
enacts the general rule of inadmissibility of involuntary confessions, recognized all over the
world and guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. A confession made under
an inducement that has not been removed within the meaning of Section 28 is not relevant as a
confession under Section 24. Section 24 of Evidence Act is a rule of exclusion because it
declares that a confession made by an accused person in certain circumstances is irrelevant in a
criminal proceeding. Under Section 24 of the Evidence Act essential requirement, therefore, is
that such inducement, promise must proceed from a person in authority. Thus in order to make a
confession relevant under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, it must be shown that it was made
voluntarily by the person accused of an offence.

Voluntary ‘Confession’

The word voluntary confession means a confession not caused by inducement, threat or promise
and does not mean a confession made willingly as all confession made I consequence of
inducement threat or promise are made ‘willingly’ in the later sense.

Involuntary Confessions

An involuntary confession is one which is not the result of the free-will of the maker of it, so
where a confession is made as a result of the harassment and continuous interrogation for several
15
By anonymous, voluntary confession, http://hanumant.com/LOE-Unit4-Confession.html , accessed on
13/02/2021.
16
Richa saxena, Admission, Confession and Dying declaration,
https://www.lkouniv.ac.in/site/writereaddata/siteContent/202004050627539144richa_saxena_Law_of_Evidence.pdf,
accessed on 13/02/2021.

10 | P a g e
hours after the person is treated as an offender and accused, such statement must be regarded as
involuntary. A confession which is voluntary is admissible in evidence even if it is false. On the
contrary a confession which is not voluntary is not admissible.

Burden of Proof:- The words ‘if it appears to the court’ as used in Section 24 do at the first
instance, seem to favour a view that the burden of proving involuntariness is on the accused. In
relation to judicial confessions field’s opinion is that it is held to be voluntary unless contrary is
shown. It is not every threat, inducement or promise emanating from a person I authority that is
hit by Section 24 but it has to be such an inducement, threat or promise which should lead the
accused to suppose that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a
temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.17

The rule of total exclusion of custodial confession from evidence, as enacted under Section 25
and 26 of the Evidence Act on the face of it, shows a serious concern of legislature for protection
against police brutality, of the right of an accused person not to be compelled incriminate
himself. The rule carries the privilege against compelled self-incrimination quite for adding to it
the concept of deemed in voluntariness due to the custody of the police. Provisions akin to
Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act were first enacted as Sections 147 and 148 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1861. A state of total absurdity is created by Section 163(2) Cr. P.C.
which debars the police even from cautioning the accused that he is not bound to make a
confession. The confession recorded under the mandate of Section 163(2) Cr. P.C. is also not
admissible in evidence however voluntary and unblemished it may be because of Section 25
Evidence Act and Section 162 Cr. P.C. Nevertheless it has to be recorded18.

Indian legislatures have created a total bar to admissibility of custodial confessions in evidence.
i.e. confessions made by an accused person to police or to anyone, whilst in police custody.
These are governed by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It is a difficult, therefore, to hold
that the mere fact of a written statement containing a writing addressed to a police officer

17
S. Rangarajan, LAW OF EVIDENCE, http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/738/13/Law%20of
%20Evidence.pdf, accessed on 13/02/2021.
18
R. K. Raizada, Confession in the law of evidence: an incongruity, https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950175?seq=1, accessed on
13/02/2021.

11 | P a g e
without anything further being done by that person or without the police having had anything to
do with it would amount to a “statement made to a police officer” within the meaning of Section
25 of the Evidence Act19.

Confession Inadmissible if made to a Police Officer at any Time before or after the Investigation

The words of Section 25 Evidence Act are wide enough to exclude any confession to a police
officer. Thus a confession made to a police officer at any time that is either before
commencement of investigation or after, is inadmissible. When an accused himself turns up at
the police station and lodges the First Information Report with regard to an offence committed
by him the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as res gestae. If the
information is non-confessional it is admissible as an admission under Section 21. the court
pointed out that if the First Information Report is given by the accused to Police Officer and
amounts to a confessional statement the proof of the confession is prohibited by section 25. The
confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of
incriminating facts related to offence contained in the confessional statement.20

No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban
of Section 25 is lifted by Section 27. A confession made by an accused whilst he is in police
custody to any person be it a fellow prisoner, a doctor or a visitor is inadmissible in evidence21.

19
Ibid.
20
By anonymous available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l256-Critical-Analysis-on-Confession.html
last visited on 19/02/2021.
21
Ibid.

12 | P a g e
CHAPTER II EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION

A confession is substantive evidence against its maker, so that it has been duly
recorded and suffers from no legal infirmity, it would suffice to convict the
accused who made the confession, though as a matter of prudence, the Court expects   some  
corroboration before   acting   upon   it.

Even   then   slight corroboration would suffice. But before acting upon a confession, the Court

must be satisfied that it is voluntary and true.

In Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar22, it has been held that, “A statement contained in the FIR

furnished by one of the accused in the case cannot, in any manner, be used against another
accused. Even as against the accused who made it, the statement cannot be used if it is
inculpatory in nature nor can it be used for the purpose of corroboration or contradiction unless
its maker offers himself as a witness in the trial. The very limited use of it is as an admission
under Sec.21 of the Evidence Act.

In the case of     Jagta Vs. State23, 

It has been held that evidence of Extra judicial confession in the very nature of things is a weak
piece of evidence. However, it is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra
judicial confession is weak type of evidence.

Admissibility of the confession is a question for the Judge. Upon a consideration of the
evidence and circumstances, the Judge preliminary decides on the voluntariness or otherwise of
the confession. If his answer is in negative, the confession is excluded as a matter of law. If his
answer is affirmative, the confession is admissible. The Judge to determine admissibility of the
confession whether confession is true and of how much weight and value. If he is satisfied from
the evidence that it is true then to act upon it. Confession made before the police leading
to discovery of the facts is admissible, as per Sec.27 of the Evidence Act. When accused
retract from confession it is called retracted confession. Such confession can be legal base of the

22
AIR 1966 SC 119.
23
AIR 1974 SC 1545 

13 | P a g e
conviction, if the court is satisfied that it was true and so voluntarily made. But ordinarily
corroboration is required24.

The law in regard to extrajudicial confessions may be stated thus: An extrajudicial confession, if
voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence in convicting the accused.
In examining the value of an extrajudicial confession one factor is whether the accused was a
free man while making his confession. The second factor is that the value of the confession as an
evidence on veracity of the witness to whom it was made. A conviction can be founded on a
extrajudicial confession. It should be clear, specific and unambiguous. But it should not be
expected that the witness, in order to establish his credibility, should be able to reproduce the
statement in its word for word original version25.

As a matter of law corroboration is not necessary at all as a general rule a retracted confession
requires corroboration of some kind; but the amount of corroboration which the Court will look
for depends on the circumstances of each case. It has been held about a judicial confession that
though it is retracted by the maker, it was not a ground to presume that it was tainted.

The rules regarding a confession, which is subsequently retracted, are;

(1) That a confession is not to be regarded as involuntary merely because it is retracted,

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

(3) As against the coaccused, both prudence and caution require the Court not to rely on a
retracted confession without independent corroborative evidence and

(4) Retraction should not be ambiguous, vague or imaginary26.

24
Simz kaur, admissibility of confession, http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-138-admissions-and-
confessions-under-indian-evidence-act-1972.html, accessed on 13/02/2021.
25
Ibid.
26
Anonymous, CONFESSION AND ADMISSION IN TRIAL, file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/Title%20NO.219(As
%20Per%20Workshop%20List%20title%20no219%20pdf).pdf, accessed on 13/02/2021.

14 | P a g e
CHAPTER III: 69th LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA REPORT ON SECTION 29 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE
ACT

In the 69th Report, it was stated that there were two meanings as what was meant by “otherwise
relevant”. One view, as in Patna was that it must be a confession other than those referred to in
sec. 24 to 28. The other view taken by the Bombay High Court was that it may be one admissible
and not excluded by sec. 24 to 28 or by any other provision of law. The latter view was accepted
and it was suggested that the words “is otherwise relevant” be replaced by the words “made by
an accused person is not irrelevant or incapable of being proved under sec. 24 to 27 or to drop
the word ‘such’ or that the word ‘such’ may be dropped. In fact, the Report stated that the
dropping of the word ‘such’ is preferable. The Commission considered sec. 29 in relation to sec.
164 and finally recommended that sec. 29 must be made subject to sec. 164(2) CrPC. We
entirely agree with these two recommendations and that sec. 29 should be redrafted as follows27:

Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy etc28

(1) If a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it is made
–

(i) under a promise of secrecy, or

(ii) in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it,
or

(iii) when he was drunk, or

(iv) in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form
of those questions.

(b) the accused person was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that
evidence of it might be given against him.

27
Saul Kassin, confession evidence, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232554692_Confession_Evidence,
accessed on 13/02/2021.
28
Law of Evidence, Dr. V. Krishnamachari, 7th edition2014, Nerender Gogia and Company

15 | P a g e
(2) Subject to the provisions of section 463 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, nothing
contained in sub-section (1) shall make a confession relevant which is recorded in contravention
of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 164 of that Code.

16 | P a g e
CASE STUDY

Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor29, and held that:

“……no statement that contains self-exculpatory matter can amount to a confession, if the
exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to
confess. Moreover, 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 conclusive incriminating fact is not of itself a confession e.g. an admission that the
accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which caused a
death with no explanation of any other man’s possession”.

Ram v. State30, and the court observed as follows:

“If the statement by itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, it is a confession but that
if, on the other hand, the statement falls short of it. It amounts to an admission. The acid test
which distinguishes a confession from an admission is that where a confession can be based
upon the statement alone it is a confession and that where supplementary evidence is needed to
authorize a conviction then it is an admission.”

In Queen Empress v. Babu Lal31, the Privy Council held that section 24 declares that confession
caused by inducement, threat or promise are irrelevant unless as Section 28 provides, they are
made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has been fully
removed.

The court held in Suka & Misra v. State 32, that if the confession is not tainted by any of these
vitiating factors the court is entitled to presume that it is voluntary. Adjudication as to
voluntariness and as to truth is done at two different stages in a trial. Once a confession is found
to be voluntary, it can be admitted in evidence. The stage of deciding the veracity or reliability of
the confession comes at the time of final disposal of the case when its weight is determined in
relation to other evidence available on record.

29
(1939) 41 BOMLR 428.
30
1966 SCR (2) 740.
31
(1899) ILR 21 All 106.
32
AIR 1951 Ori 71.

17 | P a g e
Nandini Satpati v. P.L. Dani33

held that compulsion in this sense is a physical objective act and not the stage of mind of the
person making the statement except when the mind has been so conditioned by some extraneous
process as to render the making of the statement involuntary and therefore extorted. It was
emphasized in the judgment that compelled testimony is not limited to physical torture or
coercion, but extends also to techniques of psychological interrogation which can cause mental
torture or mental compulsion in a person subjected to such interrogation.

33
AIR 1978 SC 1025.

18 | P a g e
CONCLUSION

At the end of the project, the researcher was able to conclude that 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”. The concept of confession which existed since time immemorial needs serious
help. The provisions of evidence relating to confession which was passed way back in 1872
needs a serious revamp to come into terms with backlog of criminal cases in India. The Evidence
Act 1872 needs to be changed considerably specially in case of confessions so as to increase the
expediency of the criminal trials as to bring back the faith of the judiciary by expedient disposing
of Criminal Cases. It is a well settled law that if once police custody has commenced, the mere
fact that for a temporary period the police discretely withdraws form the scene and left the
accused in charge of some other person will not render the confession of the accused before that
person admissible. Once an accused is arrested by a police officer and is in his custody, the mere
fact that for some purpose or other the police officer happens to be temporarily absent and during
this temporary absence leaves the accused in charge of a private individual does not terminate his
custody, the accused shall be deemed to be still in police custody. The test, therefore, is whether
at the time when the person makes an extra judicial confession, he is a free man or his
movements are controlled by the police either by themselves or through some other agency
employed by them for the purpose of security of such a confession. With the above study it
seems that the relevance of the statement of the accused is an important fact in conviction of the
accused. But there are various factors involved in the relevance of the statement of the accused.
Admissions and confessions from a special group within the exception to be hearsay rule. The
key factor that distinguishes them from other hearsay evidence is that they are statements one or
the parties to the proceeding. The party is litigating in the court and is in a position to admit or

19 | P a g e
deny that he had made such a statement. He can also cross examine the witness proving the
admission or confession made by him.

20 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books references:-

 Law of Evidence, Dr. V. Krishnamachari, 7th edition2014, Nerender Gogia and Company
 Law of Evidence, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, 24th edition 2011, Lexis Nexis
 Law of Evidence, Batuklal, 20th edition 2014, Central law Agency.
 Law on Admissions and Confessions ,Gopal. S. Chaturvedi, 2 nd edition Delhi Law
House.

Online sources:-

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232554692_Confession_Evidence
 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3669253
 https://www.lkouniv.ac.in/site/writereaddata/siteContent/202004050627539144richa_sax
ena_Law_of_Evidence.pdf
 http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-138-admissions-and-confessions-under-
indian-evidence-act-1972.html
 https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950175?seq=1
 https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/2/122.pdf
 http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.219(As%20Per%20Workshop%20List
%20title%20no219%20pdf).pdf
 https://www.srdlawnotes.com/2017/02/confession-and-kinds-of-confession.html
 https://www.lawnn.com/confession/

21 | P a g e