Law of Evidence Internal Assessment

Mohammad Aamir
20010165
BBA LLB E

Answer 1
As per the question, the statement was made by Ameena to the investigating when she was in
custody that she had hidden the stolen papers at the flagpole and based on her statement the
papers were recovered by the officer. Here there is a relevant fact stated and there has been
something new discovered by the police based on Ameena’s statement.

Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act states that no statement made to a police officer can be
proved against any accused and Section 26 states that confessions made by the accused while
in police custody can be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of
the magistrate. But, Section 27 states an exception to section 25 & 26 and says that if there is
any new fact discovered upon the statement confessed in police custody of the officer by the
accused and is distinctly related to the facts then that part of the confession can be admissible.
It was held in the NavneethaKrishnan v. State by inspector of Police that Section 27 is only
applicable when the confessional statement leads to a new fact and its relevance is distinctly
related to the fact discovered. In the situation the location of where the stolen papers were
hidden was revealed by Ameena which is related to the case.
There are two conditions where the admissibility of Ameena’s confession can be decided as
per the law. The first condition is that the statement must be made deliberately and not under
any force or coercion. The second condition is that whatever mentioned in the statement must
me related to material fact relevant to the case. It is also mentioned that when the confession
is made, As per Section 27 only the new information gathered as per section 27 will be
recorded and the confession in general will be excluded.

Hence, the fact disclosed by Ameena about the location of the papers hidden will be
considered.

Answer 2
Based on the facts mentioned in the case, Ishika had stated that Shivansh had provoked and
encouraged Ishika to commit the crime alongside him to retain power of the CR but not
letting Neelima win.
So, to prove if this confession can be made by Ishika if Shivansh is to be taken into
consideration by the magistrate, can be proved by the principles of law that govern the
admissibility of evidence.
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, if there is a conspiracy then proved then the
statements made by one person against another person with regard to the conspiracy and the
conspiracy in this situation is Shivansh trying to provoke and being involved in the murder.
The Section states “When more persons 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 as against such
other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.” In this case is Ishika
and Shivansh being tried for the same offence and the confession being made by Ishika
herself and affecting Shivansh.

As per Section 30, The court may consider such a confession valid. But there are conditions
set in order to prove the confession valid or invalid by the magistrate. And these conditions
are laid down in the past case precedents. In the case of Kashmira Singh V State of Madhya
Pradesh, The Supreme Court had stated that these Confessions are applicable if they are
voluntary, truthful and are made without any inducement or threat. It had also stated that
these evidence should be corroborated by other evidence to establish their truthfulness and
reliability. The court held that the admission was applicable under section 30 as they were
related to the circumstances, which is the same here in the case of Ishika and Shivansh.
It was also held in other various cases like Bhagwan Swarup v State of Rajasthan, Sahadevan
v. State of Tamil Nadu, though not charged under the same the same was also held in K.M
Nanavati and State of Maharashtra that In cases where one accused person confesses to a
crime and implicates a co-accused, the confession can be used as evidence against the co-
accused if it was made voluntarily and truthfully. However, the court will also require other
evidence to corroborate the confession and ensure its reliability and truthfulness. The
corroborating evidence is necessary to establish that both accused persons were actually
involved in the commission of the crime.
Hence, The Confession made by Ishika is admissible based on the arguments stated above.

Answer 5

A person’s conduct and behaviour do act as evidence in order to establish their condition or
state of mind during the commission of the crime or offence. This is mentioned in Section 21
of the Indian Evidence Act. So as per the facts mentioned in the question Muskan’s Refusal to
sell the diamond rings below the actual market price of the rings demonstrates her state of
mind to prove if she knew that if the goods were stolen or not. This argument basically relies
on the assumption that if Muskaan knew that the goods were stolen then she would sell it for
a price lesser to clear them off and avoid any suspicion. Because she didn’t know they were
stolen she refused to sell them at a lesser price and agreed to wait until she fetched the right
market price. As mentioned in the section, the rules stated in the section follow and in the end
it is the court’s discretion based upon the factual circumstances and evidences presented. But
it also has to be considered Muskan’s admission is relevant and can be used to understand
that the fact of her not willing to sell the goods below market price does affect her conduct
and affect the facts.

Answer 3

There is no legal definition of ‘confession’ mentioned in the Indian law or as per say in the
Indian Evidence Act. But there is a case precedent which lays down the explanation of the
word confession. In the case of Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor It was mentioned that “No
statement that includes self-exonerating information can be considered a confession if the
self-exonerating information refers to a fact that, if true, would negate the alleged offence
being confessed. In addition, a confession must either admit the alleged offence in terms of it
or at least substantially all the facts that make up the offence.” Judicial confession are
basically the confessions that are made in front of the court during the process of the legal
proceedings. Judicial Confessions must be made freely when a person is in the right state of
mind. Extra Judicial confessions are those. Extra judicial confessions are those confessions
which are made by the accused but not in front of a magistrate. And it is not necessarily
required that the extra judicial confessions have to exist in the form of a properly said
confessions alone. There is no said or a properly laid down process or a method of how an
extra judicial confession should be. An extra judicial confession is basically a person
voluntarily confessing his guilt any possible way of a conversation which is not done in front
of the court or the magistrate.

But it is generally accepted that Judicial Confession is more powerful than an extra judicial
confession. To any person that the extra judicial confession has been made they have to be
recognized as a witness by the court. In case of a Judicial confession a direct confession by
the magistrate is possible but whereas in case of Extra judicial confession a confession can’t
be directly admitted by the magistrate. There should be evidence supporting an extrajudicial
confession but whereas in case of a judicial confession there is no evidence. For a conviction
for an extra judicial confession, it should pass the test of credibility. Section 164 of the CRPC
is also not applicable in case of Extra Judicial Confessions. In case of Piara Singh v. State of
West Bengal, Supreme Court Held that extra judicial confessions are a weak form of evidence
and can’t be blindly relied upon.

These are primary differences between judicial and extra judicial confessions.

Answer 4
A retracted confession is basically a confessionary statement made by the accused before the
start of the trial. In the first statement the accused accepts that he had committed the crime
but later during the trial the statement is repudiated by the accused. In case if a confession has
been retracted by the accused the court will consider various factors in order to determine the
basis of the retracted confession. If the confession was done was voluntary or true or if
there’s any other conspiracy behind the retracted confession. It is the duty of the court to
decide the confession if it was done voluntarily or not. But once a confession is retracted the
credibility is lost. In order to figure out if the confession is voluntary or not the court finds
out if the confession was not done because of any inducement, or force or imminent threat
and the reason by the accused for changing his statement or unique situations or facts leading
to the confession and variations between the eye witnesses and facts of the confession.

Like an extra judicial confession a retracted confession alone enough to rely on unless it is
backed by a proper solid evidence. In the case of Sukhdev Singh V State of Maharashtra, It
was held If the court feels that a retracted confession is true and voluntary and not done based
on any inducement. Then it form a basis of conviction.

In case of Mahesh v State of Madhya Pradesh, It was held that Retracted confession can be
used as evidence but it should be proved that it was done deliberately and is backed up by
other evidence. In case of Nishi Kant Jha v, State of Bihar, The Supreme Court Held that just
because a confession was retracted it does not make it inadmissible, but it has to be made sure
that its voluntary nature has to voluntary and all the circumstances have to be considered
before relying on it .

This is Retracted Confession.