CONFESSION

DEFINITION OF CONFESSION

 Mr. Justice Stephen in his digest of 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 that crime”.

 Confession is an statement that fulfills any two conditions :

 If he states that he committed the crime he is charged with
 If his statements gives some inference that he might have committed the crime.
 Confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made is an “ efficient proof of guilt”.
 It is an important piece Of evidence.

 A voluntary admission, declaration or acknowledgement (made orally or in writing) by

one who has committed a felony or a misdemeanor that he committed the crime/offense or
participated in its commission.
 CONFESSION ADMISSION

 Not defined in Indian Evidence  Section 17 : Admission is any

Act ,but the inference statement made in either form such
explained under the definition as oral, documentary or in electronic
of admission in section 17 of form which has enough probative
Indian Evidence Act also value to suggest or conclude any
applies to confession in the inference as to any fact in issue or
same manner. relevant fact.

 The confession is something  When any person voluntarily

which is made by the person acknowledges the existence of any
who is charged with any facts in issue or facts.
criminal offences
 Confessions are always used or go
 Confessions are always used or against the confessor of the
go against the confessor of the statements.
statements.
 CONFESSION ADMISSION
 If the confessions are purposefully  Admissions may be operated as
and are made on someone’s own will estoppels because they are not
then it may be accepted as conclusive as to the facts admitted by
conclusive of the facts confessed by the person who in his statement admit
the confessor. some facts.
 Admission cannot be used against the
 Confessions confessed by more than person who is admitting the facts by any
one person jointly for the same statements as they don’t have much
offence can be considered against probative evidentiary value. Hence the
other accused of the same crime admission made by the different
under Section 30 of the Indian personalities of the same suit cannot be
Evidence Act. used as evidence against other persons.

 Confession is the direct admission of  Admission gives the conclusion about

matter or facts of the cases either in the liability of the person who is
the form of a written or oral admitting any facts or matter either in
statement. the form of oral or written statements.
 TYPES OF CONFESSION

Judicial Confession Extra-Judicial Confession

JUDICIAL
CONFESSION
JUDICIAL CONFESSION also known as FORMAL CONFESSION are those statements
which are made before an office of magistrate or in the court of law during any criminal
proceedings .
• A judicial confession not much other than a “plea of guilty” as per the provision explained
under Article 20(3) of Indian Constitution, otherwise any confession made against the
person who is making the confession will have no evidentiary value and he cannot be
concluded guilty of any offence on the behalf of such confession.
• It may even consist of conversation to oneself , which may be produced in evidence if
overheard by another.

For Example: In Sahoo v/s State of Uttar Pradesh; The accused who was charged with the
murder of his daughter-in-law with whom he was always quarreling was seen on the day of
murder going out of the home, saying words to the effect: “ I finished her and with her the daily
quarrels”. The statement was held to be confession relevant in evidence, for it is not necessary
for the relevancy of a confession that it should be communicated to some other person.
EXTRA JUDICIAL
CONFESSION
EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS also known as INFORMAL CONFESSIONS are those
which are made by the accused elsewhere than before a magistrate or in court. It is not
necessary that the statements should have been addressed to any definite individual. It
may have taken place in the form of a prayer. It may be a confession to a private person. An
extra-judicial confession has been defined to mean “ a free and voluntary confession of guilt
by a person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other than judge
or magistrate seized of the charge against himself.
• It is a fundamental principle of the court that a prisoner’s confession outside the court is
only admissible, if it is voluntary.
• The value of confession is determined by the veracity of the person to whom the
confession is made and who appears to testify to it.
• An extra-judicial confession is, in the very nature of things a weak piece of evidence.
There should be no difficulty in rejecting it if it lacks in probability.
RETRACTED
CONFESSION
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 utilized against the person who is confessing some retracted statements if
it is substantiated by another independent and corroborative evidence. Retraction of
statements is something that happens in most criminal cases. The reason behind the same
may be the inadequate police protection or the ill-developed mechanism for witness
protection or the inherent securities of the witnesses or the accused under the influence of
the status of the opposing party as happens in almost all the high profile cases.

In India, retractions are as plentiful as confessions. This goes to show that most confessions
do no proceed from a feeling of penitence and remorse as they should, but that they have
their source in the inducement, threat, torture, hope or any other non-validating cause.[8]
Thus, to retract from a confession is the right of the confessor and all the accused have
invariably adopted that right.
VOLUNTARY
CONFESSION
A voluntary confession is a
confession that has not been
coerced or forced from you and
has been made with your true and
free will. If you make a confession
that is not voluntary , it cannot be
admitted as evidence against you
in your trial. Even if a confession
was given voluntarily , it may still
be inadmissible because of the
oppressive or unfair
circumstances in which it was
obtained.
INDUCED
CONFESSION
Section 24:Confession caused by inducement ,threat or promise when irrelevant in criminal
proceeding-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 or promise.
The conditions of irrelevancy under section are:
1.The confession must be the result of inducement, threat, or promise.
2.Inducement, etc. should proceed from a person in authority;
3.It should relate to the charge in question ;and
4.It should hold out some worldly benefit or disadvantage.
When these conditions are present, t6he confession is said to be not free and will not be
receivable in evidence.
1.INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR PROMISE
A confession should be free and voluntary. If it flows from hope or
fear, excited by a person in authority, it is inadmissible.
It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the confession
was free and voluntary. It is sufficient for the purpose of excluding
a confession that the confession appears to have been the result of
an inducement, even if it is not proved that the inducement reached
the accused.
2.PERSON IN AUTHORITY
The second requirement is that the inducement, threat or promise
should proceed from a person in authority.
3.INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR PROMISE SHOULD BE IN
REFERENCE TO CHARGE
The section says that the inducement must have reference to the
charge against the accused person.
CO-ACCUSED
CONFESSION

When more than one persons are being jointly tried for one and the same offence or
offences they are called co-accused. Any one of them is at liberty to confess to his own guilt
and his confession will have the full force of evidence against him. But when he records a
confession implicating himself as well his other co-accused, that is called the confession of
a co-accused and the question arises what is its value against the other non-confessing co-
accused. Some guidance is to be found in section 30, which provides that such confession is
relevant against all the accused persons. All that session say is that such confession may
be taken into consideration against all of them, leaving the weight of the confession to the
discretion of the court.
CONFESSION TO
POLICE
Section 25 provides that “No statements
made to a Police Officer shall be
considered as a confession for the
purpose of proving that confession
against that person who is accused to
the case”. The terms explained under
Section 25 of this Act has vital
importance which makes sure that any
confession made by the accused to the
police officer under any circumstances
until provided, is totally not admissible
as evidence in a court of law against the
accused to prove his guilt.
 WHY CONFESSION GIVEN TO POLICE IS NOT CONSIDERED AS
EVIDENCE ?

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. Such a confession will be irrelevant.
When police are busy on their short-route to success, good evidence may disappear due to inattention to
the real clues.

EFFECT OF POLICE PRESENCE

When the confession is being given to someone else and the policeman is only casually present and
overhears it that will not destroy the voluntary nature of the confession.
But where that person is a secret agent of the police deputed for the very purpose of receiving a confession,
it will suffer from blemish of being a confession to police.

This principle of exclusion applies only to statement which amount to a confession. If a statement falls
short of a confession, that is, it doesn’t admit the guilt in terms or sustainability all the facts which
constitute the offence, it will be admissible even if made to a policeman, for example, the statement of an
accused to the police that he witnessed the murderer in question. The statement being not a confession
was received in evidence against him, as showing his presence on the spot.
 STATEMENTS DURING INVESTIGATION AND BEFORE ACCUSATION
 A confessional statement made by a person to the police even before he is accused of any offence
is equally irrelevant.
 A confession is considered involuntary if it is made during an investigation which by its nature,
duration or other attendant circumstances creates hopes or fears or so effects the mind of
suspect that his will crumbles.

CONFESSIONAL FIR

Only that part of a confessional First Information Report is admissible which does not amount to a
confession or which comes under the scope of section 27. The non confessional part of the FIR can be
used as evidence against the accused as showing his conduct under section 8.

USE OF CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT BY ACCUSED

Though the statements to police made by the confessing accused cannot be used
in evidence against him, he can himself rely on those statements in his defence.
Once the guilt was established through other evidence, he was permitted to rely
upon his statement.
CONFESSION IN POLICE CUSTODY
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. No confession is made to anybody while the
person making it is in the police custody is provable.
The confession made to a police officer or to anyone else while the accused is in police custody are
not different in kind and quality. Both are likely to suffer from the blemish of not being free and
voluntary.

PRESENCE OF MAGISTRATE
The section recognizes one exception. If the accused confesses while in police custody but in the
immediate presence of a magistrate, the confession will be valid.
Immediate presence of the magistrate means his presence in the same room, where the confession
is being recorded.
A confession made while the accused is in judicial custody or lockup will be revelant,even if the
accused is being guarded by policemen.
 HOW MUCH OF INFORMATION RECEIVED
FROM ACCUSED MAY BE PROVED?
SECTION 27 says that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence 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 thereby discovered, may be proved.

CONFESSION TO POLICE AND CONSEQUENTIAL DISCOVERIES :

Under the Evidence Act ,there are two situations in which confessions to police are admitted
in evidence.
One is when the statement is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate ,and the
second ,when the statement leads to the discovery of a fact connected with the crime.
The discovery assures the truth of the statement and makes it reliable even it was extorted .
This is so provided in Section 27.
Statements made by the accused in connection with an investigation in some other case
which lead to the discovery of a fact are also relevant .That part of an involuntary confession
confirmed by the discovery of real evidence is admissible because the truth of the statement is
established by that evidence.
Only the information that definitely relates to the facts discovered is admissible. The information
must be recorded. Where it is not recorded ,the exact information must be adduced through evidence.
It is necessary that the person in question should be accused of some offence. Where without any
accusation a person was brought to the police station for interrogation, his statement and
consequential discovery of a fact were held to be not relevant under section 27.
Requirements Under The Section- the conditions necessary for the application of section 27 are:
1. The 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 were discovered in consequence
of the information received from the accused. In the example given above, before the statement of the
accused could be proved, somebody, such a sub-inspector, must depose that in consequence of the
given information 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.
 EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION

Confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make an admission
against himself unless prompted by his conscience to tell the truth. The evidentiary value of a
confession has been explained by the Supreme Court in quite a few cases and the one among them is
the decision of SARKARIA, J., in Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan,5 The learned Judge said: "It is
well settled that a confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt.
Therefore, when in a capital case the prosecution demands conviction of the accused primarily on
the basis of his confession recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C., the court must apply a double test:(1)
whether the confession was perfectly voluntary; (2) if so, whether it is true and trustworthy.

PROCEDURE OF RECORDING JUDICIAL CONFESSION

The Judge after referring to the facts of the case to find out whether the confession in question was
voluntary. The magistrate who recorded the confession asks the accused a number of questions to
find out whether he was not being forced by the police to confess and he would be given 24 hours
time in judicial custody to consider whether he should confess or not.
 CONCLUSION
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”.
Confession is an important form of evidence which is used for proving the case in a court
of law. Based on documents of things we collect during the evidence is not helpful to
prove the case with. It is not always feasible or adequate to base a case only on
documentary evidence collected. This is where confession comes as a vital form of
evidence. There are other forms of evidence which are used to prove the case but
confession is the most valuable form of evidence which cannot be rejected in the court of
law.
 BIBILIOGRAPHY

1. Principles of the law of evidence – Dr. Avtar Singh

2. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1547/Confession-under-Indian-Evidence-Act.html

3. https://blog.ipleaders.in/confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act/

4. https://lexforti.com/legal-news/types-of-confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act/
Submitted by: Anjana S Kumar (4111)
Devika P V (4115)
J Greeshma Reddy (4119)

Course: M.A/M.Sc. in Applied Criminology and Police Studies

Paper: Criminal Investigation

Submitted to: Dr. Swikar Lama

Assistant professor
Dept. of criminology and police studies