ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Principal, PROF. ANAND SHANKER SINGH
for providing me with the opportunity to pursue this research. I would also like to thank
Convener, DR. MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY for his invaluable guidance and support
throughout the project. I am also indebted to Assistant Professor, SRISTI SINGH for his
expertise and insights, which were instrumental in shaping my research. I would also like to
thanks my parents who helped me a lot with proper apparatuses and equipments to finalize this
assignment within the limited time frame.
ANMOL SHARMA
5th SEMESTER
B.A LL.B(Hons)
1
INDEX
S.NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.
01 INTRODUCTION 03
02 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF CONFESSION 04
03 TYPES OF CONFESSION 05-06
04 CONFESSION TO BE VOLUNTRY - 07
05 CONFESSION AFTER REMOVAL OF INDUCEMENT, 07
THREAT COERCION OR PROMISE
06 CONFESSION OTHERWISE RELEVANT NOT TO 08
BECOME IRRELEVANT BECAUSE OF PROMISE TO
SECRECY etc.
07 CONFESSION TO POLICE OFFICER (SECTION 23) 08
08 WHO IS POLICE OFFICER 09
09 CONFESSION IN CUSTODY OF POLICE AND IN 09
PRESENSE OF MAGISTRATE
10 HOW MUCH OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM 09-10
ACCUSED MAY BE PROVED-
11 10-11
CONSIDERATION OF PROVED CONFESSION
AFFECTING PERSON MAKING IT AND OTHERS
JOINTLY UNDER THE TRIAL FOR SAME OFFENCE.
12 Tried Jointly- 11-12
14 DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONFESSION AND 13
ADMISSION
15 CONCLUSION 14
2
CONFESSION
(SECTION 22, SECTION 23 AND SECTION 24)
INTRODUCTION
Confession is the statement of the person accused of any offence accepting or draw inference
of the guilt for the charged he has been convicted. Confession has been defined from section
24 to 30 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and from section 22 to 24 in Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam 2023. Confession is a part of admission means “all confession is an admission but
all admission is not a confession”.
ADMISSION
CONFESSIONa
Confession is used in criminal cases because in confession accused is admitting his guilt
directly or draw some inferences of the guilt that’s why confession can be made by the accused
only,
no other person can make a confession on behalf of other person. The confession should be
done voluntarily any confession caused by threat or by fraud would not amount to confession.
Confession is an important piece of evidence and therefore it would be necessary to examine
whether or not the confession made by the appellant was voluntary, true and trustworthy.1
1
Shivappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 837
3
MEANING AND DEFINITION OF CONFESSION
The word 'confession' appears for the first time in Section 22 of the Bhartiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam.
The word 'confession' has not been defined in the Act. According to Sir James Stephen in his
Digest of the Law of Evidence defined confession as “Confession is an admission made at any
time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a
crime”.2
According to this definition a statement of an accused will amount to a confession if it fulfills
any of the following two conditions:
(1) If he states that he committed the crime he is charged with, or
(2) if he makes a statement by which he does not clearly admit the guilt, yet from the statement
some inference may be drawn that he might have committed the crime.
In Pakala Narain Swami v Emperor3
His Lordship said: "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 conclusively incriminating fact, is not in itself a confession,
for example, an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the
knife or revolver which caused death with no explanation of any other man's possession.
Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab4
Supreme Court approved the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case over two
scores.
Firstly, that the definition if confession is that it must either admit the guilt in terms or admit
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.
Secondly, that a mixed up statement which even though contains some confessional statement
will still lead to acquittal, is no confession. Thus, a statement that contains self-exculpatory
matter which if true would negate the matter or offence, cannot amount to confession.
It is a well accepted rule regarding the use of confessions and admissions that these must be
accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole and that the court is not competent to accept only
the inculpatory part while rejecting the exculpatory part as inherently incredible.
Thus, the confession is something which is made by the person who is charged with any
criminal offences and such statements conferred by him shall be suggesting a conclusion as to
any fact in issue or as to relevant facts. The statements may infer any reasoning for concluding
or suggesting that he is guilty of a crime.
2
Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence 215 (Central Law Agency, Prayagraj, 24th edn., 2023)
3
AIR 1939 PC 47
4
AIR 1952 SC 354
4
TYPES OF CONFESSION
1. Judicial Confession–
Judicial confession is that confession which is made before the court or to the
Magistrate. Confession made before the Magistrate is considered as the good piece of
evidence. An accused can be convicted only on the sole confession made before the
Magistrate because confession before the Magistrate has been complied with the
provisions of section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908, so there is no chance
of involuntary confession if it is found in the proceedings that the confession made by
the accused is not out of a free will, then the confession would be considered as invalid.
For example– A murdered B and A admitted before the Magistrate that he has committed the
murder, with his free will then this confession would be considered as Judicial Confession.
In, Modi Ganga V. State5
The supreme court held that the confessional statement, when recorded in accordance with
section 164 and 364, Criminal Procedure Code, can be admitted in evidence without the
magistrate recording such statement be examined.
2. Extra-Judicial Confession-
Extra-Judicial confession is that confession which can be made to Magistrate out of
Court proceedings or to any other person. It can be made to doctors, village members,
strangers to any person. But the extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence,
the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession, it need
corroborative evidence.
For example- A murdered B and confessed before C, A’s friend that he has murdered to B. The
confession made by A before C is extra-judicial confession which is made out of court
proceedings and need corroborative evidence to support that confession.
In, State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh6
The Supreme Court in this case held that an extra-judicial confession’s value only increases
when it is clearly consistent and convincing to the conclusion of the case otherwise the accused
cannot be held liable for the conviction solely on the basis of the confession made by him.
5
AIR 1981 SC 1165
6
AIR 1952 SC 214
5
In, Balwinder Singh v. State7
The Supreme Court has mentioned some guidelines in the form of deciding the case that in the
case of extrajudicial confession it the court must check for the credibility of the person making
the confession and all of his statements shall be tested by the court to conclude whether the
person who made the confession is trustworthy or not, otherwise a person who is not so
trustworthy then his statements cannot be used for making any inference to prove the guilt of
the accused.
In, Sahadevan v State of Tamil Nadu8
The principles governing admissibility of an extra-judicial confession capable of forming the
basis of conviction of an accused have been summed up by Supreme Court as follows:
(i) The extra-judicial confession is weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the
court with greater care and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is
supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other
prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from
any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with
law.
3. Retracted Confession-
The English meaning of retraction is ‘the action of drawing back something’ retraction
confession is a type of confession which is previously voluntarily made by the confessor
but afterwards it is revoked or retracted by the same confessor. Retracted confession
can be utilised against the person who is confessing some retracted statements if it is
substantiated by another independent and corroborative evidence.
For example- A murdered B and A confessed this statement before the Magistrate before the
trial begins but when the Magistrate ask for confession during the trial A repudiate from his
previous statement then the confession will be called as retracted confession.
In Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan 9
The Supreme Court, in this case, lifted that a retracted confession has enough values to form
any other legal grounds to establish any conviction only if the Court satisfies that it was true
and was on someone’s own will. But the Court has to testify that the conviction cannot be solely
be made on such confession until and unless they are corroborated.
7
1995 AIR 607
8
2012 (4) SCC 694
9
AIR 1963 SC 1237
6
CONFESSION TO BE VOLUNTRY -
Confessions are received in evidence in criminal cases upon the same principle on which
admissions are received in civil cases, namely, the presumption that a person will not make an
untrue statement against his own interest. A man of sound mind and full age, who makes a
statement in ordinary simple language and has not been the victim of malpractices, threat or
inducement in making such statement, must be bound by the language of the statement and by
its ordinary plain meaning and the act spoken of must be given its legal consequence.
As per section 22 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, A confession made by an accused
person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the
Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise having reference to
the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in
the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him
reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a
temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.10
A confession cannot be used against an accused person unless the Court is satisfied that it was
voluntary and at that stage the question whether it is true or false does not arise. If the facts and
circumstances surrounding the making of a confession appear to cast a doubt on the veracity
or voluntariness of the confession, the Court may refuse to act upon the confession, even if it
is admissible in evidence. The Court has to be satisfied that at the time of making the confession
the accused was a free man and his movements were not controlled by the police either by
themselves or through some other agency employed by them for the purpose of securing such
a confession.11
CONFESSION AFTER REMOVAL OF INDUCEMENT, THREAT COERCION OR
PROMISE
Confession when made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat, coercion
or promise has, in opinion of the court, has been fully removed become relevant.12
A confession is admissible after the impression caused by an inducement, threat, or promise,
has been fully removed because it becomes free and voluntary. The impression caused by
inducement, promise, or threat, should have been fully removed before the confession is
admissible by lapse of time or by caution given by a person holding an authority superior to
that of person holding out the inducement, or by any intervening act. In determining whether
an inducement has ceased to operate, the nature of such inducement, the time and
circumstances under which it was made, the situation of the person making it, will be taken
into consideration by the court.
10
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (Act 47 of 2023), s.22
11
Kusuma Ankama Rao v. State of A.P., AIR 2008 SC 2819
12
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (Act 47 of 2023), s.22
7
CONFESSION OTHERWISE RELEVANT NOT TO BECOME IRRELEVANT
BECAUSE OF PROMISE TO SECRECY etc.
If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was
made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused
person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer
to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those
questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and
that evidence of it might be given against him.13
To be clear it may be said that if a confession is made voluntary without any inducement, threat
or promise from a person in authority and if it is not made to a police officer nor was it made
while the accused was in police custody to any person other than a Magistrate, it will be
received in evidence even if it was made by a promise of secrecy, in consequence of deception,
in a state of drunkenness, or in answer to questions or without any warning that it may be used
against him.
CONFESSION TO POLICE OFFICER (SECTION 23)
No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any
offence.14
A confession made to a police officer while the accused is in the custody or made before he
became an accused, is not provable against him in any proceeding in which he is charged to
the commission of an offence. Equally a confession made by him, while in the custody of the
police officer, to any other person is also not probable in a proceeding in which he is charged
with the commission of the offence unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Police officer is inherently suspect of employing coercion to obtain confession. Therefore, the
confession made to a police officer under section 23 should totally be excluded from evidence.
The reasons seem to be that the custody of police officer provides easy opportunities of
coercion for extorting confession.
No part of a first information report lodged by the accused with the police could be admitted
into evidence if it was in the nature of a confessional statement. The statement can, however,
be admitted to identify the accused as the maker of the report.15
A confession contained in a letter written and signed by the accused and addressed to a police-
officer was held to be admissible as the letter was not written in presence of the police-officer.
13
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (Act 47 of 2023), s.22
14
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (Act 47 of 2023), s.23
15
A Nagesia v State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119
8
WHO IS POLICE OFFICER
The Supreme Court has held that the test for determining whether a person is a police-officer
for purposes of this section would be whether the powers of a police officer which are conferred
on him or which are exercisable by him establish a direct or substantial relationship with the
prohibition enacted by this section, that is relating to the recording of a confession.16
The term cannot be construed in so wide a sense as to include persons on whom only some of
the powers exercised by the police are conferred. It applies to every police officer and is not
restricted to officers in a regular police force. A Chowkidar, a village headman, an excise peon
and an excise officer are police-officers. A home guard has been held by the Orissa High Court
to be a police personel for the purposes of this section.
A Jailor is not a police-officer, and a confession made to him may be given in evidence.
A Central Excise Officer who has the powers of a police-officer for investigation but not the
power to frame a charge-sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a
police-officer for the purposes of this section.
A forest officer under an Orissa legislation has been held to be not a police officer though
certain powers of police officers have been conferred on him.
CONFESSION IN CUSTODY OF POLICE AND IN PRESENSE OF MAGISTRATE
No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is
made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him.
Under this section no confession made by a person in custody to any person other than a police-
officer, shall be admissible, unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. This section
excludes confessions to anyone else, while the person making it is in a position to be influenced
by a police-officer. The presence of the Magistrate secures the free and voluntary nature of the
confession and the confessing person has an opportunity of making a statement uncontrolled
by any fear of the police.
HOW MUCH OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ACCUSED MAY BE PROVED-
When any fact is deposed to as discovered inconsequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information,
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be
proved.17
This section is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by
the discovery of a fact it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted. It comes
into operation only:
(1) if and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of information
received from an accused person in police custody; and
16
Raja Ram v State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 828
17
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (Act 47 of 2023), s.23
9
(2) if the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered.
The broad ground for not admitting confessions made under inducement, threat or promise to
a police-officer is the danger of admitting false confessions, but the necessity for the exclusion
disappears in a case provided for by this section when the truth of the confession is guaranteed
by the discovery of facts in consequence of the information given.18
This section is based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of
information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and
accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. But clearly the extent of the
information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such
information is required to relate.19
The Supreme Court has held that in order that this section may apply the prosecution must
establish that the information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed
to by him. The discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from
other sources and that the knowledge of the fact was first derived from information given by
the accused.
CONSIDERATION OF PROVED CONFESSION AFFECTING PERSON MAKING IT
AND OTHERS JOINTLY UNDER THE TRIAL FOR SAME OFFENCE.
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.20
Explanation I - "Offence", as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to
commit, the offence.
Explanation II - A trial of more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has
absconded or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this
section.
Illustration
(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said—"B and I murdered
C". The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A
and B, and that B said—"A and I murdered C".
This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being
jointly tried.
18
Parduman Sinh v State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 881
19
Panchu Gopal v State of WB, AIR 1968 Cal 38
20
Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023 (Act 47 of 2023), s.24
10
As seen before, a confession may be used as evidence against the person making it, and it is
strong piece of evidence against him. Section 24 lays down that when two or more persons are
tried jointly for the same offence, and the confession made by one of them is proved at the trial,
the Court may take into consideration that confession against the other accused as well as the
accused confessing the guilt.
Where more persons than one are jointly tried for the same offence, the confession made by
one of them, if admissible in evidence at all, should be taken into consideration against all the
accused, and not against the person alone who made it.
This section is an exception to the rule that the confession of one person is entirely inadmissible
against another. The policy of the law in allowing a confession by one accused to be considered
against another who is being jointly tried for the same offence, seems to rest on the recognition
of the palpable fact that such a confession cannot fail to make an impression on the Judge's
mind, which it was therefore better to control within limits than to ignore altogether.
Tried Jointly-
There should be a joint trial of the accused. The joint trial should be legal. If from any cause
the accused who made the confession cannot be legally tried with the accused against whom
the confession is to be used, the court should not attach any value to the confession.
Example- A, B and C commit murder of D. Out of them only A is arrested. B and C abscond.
A makes a confession. He is tried and convicted. Afterwards B and C are arrested and sent for
trial. At their trial the confession of A cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason
that they are not tried jointly.
It was held by the Supreme Court following Privy Council decision in Bhubani Sahu v.
King21that the confession of co-accused is a very weak type of evidence. It is not recorded on
oath nor it is tested by cross-examination. It is a much weaker type of evidence than the
evidence of an approver as the approver gives his testimony under oath and is subjected to
cross-examination. Therefore, the confession of co-accused cannot be made the basis of
conviction of accused.
Translating these observations into concrete terms, Bose J continued: "They come to this: "The
proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first to marshal the evidence against the accused
excluding the confession altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed,
conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession,
then of course it is necessary to call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the judge
is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if believed, it would be
sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event the Judge may call in aid the confession and
use it to lend assurance to the other evidence and thus satisfy himself in believing that which
without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to accept."
21
AIR 1949 PC 257
11
Before the confession of one accused may be taken into consideration against others, it has to
be shown that
(1) the person confessing and the others are being tried jointly,
(2) they are being tried for the same offence,
(3) the confession (to be taken into consideration) is affecting the confessioner and the others.
In Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P22
the accused Kashmira who was an Assistant Food Procurement Inspector, his services along
with the services of another Food Inspector were terminated on a report of the Food Officer
when they were found getting the rice polished in a rice-mill. Kashmira was heard twice saying
that he would teach a lesson to the Food Officer. After few months, the son of the Food Officer
went missing and his body was found in a well. Kashmira, Gurudayal brother of Kashmira,
Prithipal son of Gurudayal and one Gurubachan, a rickshaw-puller in this case were tried for
conspiracy and killing the child. The prosecution story was that Prithipal led the child, when
he was playing near a Gurudwara, for some distance and then the child was taken on cycle by
Kashmira to a house where he was murdered. The dead-body was packed in a gunny bag taken
on head and rickshaw and then thrown into the well from where it was recovered. Gurubachan
confessed his crime and he was sentenced to death and was ultimately executed. Kashmira was
also sentenced to death on the basis of confession made by Gurubachan.
Thus any confession made by person against himself and the other person, who is jointly under
the trial for same offence is admissible under section 24 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Act
2023.
22
AIR 1952 SC 159
12
DISTINCTION BETWEEN CONFESSION AND ADMISSION
CONFESSION ADMISSION
1) A confession is a statement made by 1) An admission usually relates to civil
an accused person which is sought to transaction and comprises all
be proved against him in criminal statements amounting to admission
proceeding to establish the defined
commission of an offence by him.
1) Confession if deliberately and 2) Admission are not conclusive as to the
voluntarily made may be accepted as matters admitted it may operate as an
conclusive of the matters confessed. estoppel.
2) Confessions always go against the 3) Admissions may be used on behalf of the
person making it. person making it.
3) Confessions made by one or two or 4) Admission by one of the several defendants
more accused jointly tried for the in suit is no evidence against other
same offence can be taken into defendants.
consideration against the co-accused
(Section 24).
4) Confession is statement written or 5) Confession is statement written or oral
oral which is direct admission of suit. which is direct admission of suit.
13
CONCLUSION
A confession, as defined in legal terms, is a statement by an accused person acknowledging
guilt or involvement in a crime. Confessions are a crucial part of criminal proceedings, as they
provide direct evidence linking an individual to an offense. However, the admissibility and use
of confessions are strictly regulated due to the potential risks of coercion, misinterpretation, or
undue influence. According to Section 22 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Act, 2023, any
confession made under inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority is considered
involuntary and, therefore, inadmissible. Courts also view confessions made to police officers
or in police custody with caution (Section 23), as these situations often carry a high risk of
coercion. To ensure reliability, laws mandate that certain confessions, especially in serious
cases, must be made before a magistrate or in the presence of legal safeguards. Furthermore,
confessions by co-accused individuals are not substantive evidence against others and are only
used to support corroborative evidence under Section 24 of the Act.
Thus, while confessions can be powerful pieces of evidence, the legal system emphasizes their
voluntary nature and carefully controls their admissibility to protect the rights of the accused
and prevent miscarriages of justice. This cautious approach ensures that confessions contribute
to a fair trial, aligning with principles of natural justice and safeguarding against wrongful
convictions.
14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCE
1) BATUK LAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
2) RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, LAW OF EVIDENCE
3) BARE ACT, BHARTIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYA, 2023
SECONDARY SOURCE
1) https://blog.ipleaders.in/confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act/
2) https://blog.ipleaders.in/need-know-recording-confession/
3) https://lawbhoomi.com/admissions-and-confessions-in-evidence-act/
4) https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1547/Confession-under-Indian-Evidence-
Act.html
15
LIST OF CASES
1) Shivappa v. State of Karnataka (1995)
2) Modi Ganga V. State (1981)
3) Pakala Narain Swami v Emperor (1939)
4) Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab (1952)
5) State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh (1952)
6) Balwinder Singh v. State (1995)
7) Sahadevan v State of Tamil Nadu (2012)
8) Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1963)
9) Kusuma Ankama Rao v. State of A.P (2008)
10) A Nagesia v State of Bihar, (1966)
11) Raja Ram v State of Bihar, (1964)
12) Parduman Sinh v State of Gujarat, (1992)
13) Panchu Gopal v State of WB, (1968)
14) Bhubani Sahu v. King (1949)
15) Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P(1952)
16
