Confession Under Indian Evidence Act | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Section 24-30 of the Indian Evidence Act discusses confessions.
• In the case of Pakala Narayan Swami V. Emperor[1], Lord Atkin highlighted the distinction between a confession and an admission.
• A confession should pertain to an offense or significant facts initiating criminal proceedings. An admission of serious wrongdoing, even if it incriminates, does not qualify as a confession.

All Confessions are admissions, but not all Admissions are confessions.

Kinds of Confession

Judicial Confessions

Confessions made directly to the court, voluntarily and in a sound state of mind. These are statements by an individual admitting guilt before a magistrate or in a court of law.

Extra Judicial Confessions

Confessions made outside the court setting. In the case of Balwinder Singh v. State, the Supreme Court provided guidelines for assessing extrajudicial confessions:

• The court must assess the credibility of the person making the confession. All statements should be scrutinized to determine the trustworthiness of the confessor.

Principles for Extra Judicial Confessions
In the case of Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court outlined principles for extrajudicial confessions:

• Extrajudicial confessions are generally weak evidence on their own and should be carefully examined.
• Confessions must be voluntary and truthful.
• When supported by other evidence, the evidentiary value of extrajudicial confessions increases.
• The confessor's statements should establish guilt like any other proven fact in a judicial proceeding.

Retracted Confessions

• Retracted confessions are those confessions that were initially made voluntarily but later withdrawn by the same individual. It is crucial to note that convictions should not rely solely on such retractions without additional corroboration.
• Self-dialogue can also lead to confessions, indicating that confessions are not limited to formal settings.
• In the legal case of Sahoo v. the State of U.P, a tragic incident unfolded where a newly married woman was murdered shortly after moving in with her husband. The accused, her father-in-law, committed the crime and exclaimed, "I have finished her," a statement witnessed by several neighbors. The court regarded this statement as a confession with incriminating implications.
• Confessions made by co-accused individuals hold limited evidentiary value and cannot serve as standalone pieces of evidence in legal proceedings.

Irrelevant Confessions

Confessions become irrelevant under certain conditions:

• When they are made under inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority.
• When they pertain to the charge in question.
• When they offer some temporal benefit or disadvantage.

For instance, if a confession is extracted through coercion, such as inducement or threats, it is deemed irrelevant. This is especially true if the confession is influenced by a person in authority or if it directly relates to the alleged offense. Additionally, confessions that come with promises of advantage or disadvantage are also considered irrelevant.

Section 28 of the law stipulates that if the elements of inducement, threat, or promise are eliminated from a confession, it can be deemed voluntary and relevant. This implies that a confession, once stripped of any coercive factors, can be admissible in court.

On the other hand, according to Section 29, confessions are not considered relevant if obtained through:

• Assurances of secrecy.
• Deception tactics.

For example, if an accused person is misled or provided false assurances of confidentiality to extract a confession, such a confession is considered irrelevant under the law.

Confessions Made in Front of Police Officers and in Police Custody

• Confessions made by the accused to the police officer or in police custody are not considered confessions under the law.
• For a confession to be admissible, it must be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate.
• Confessions to the police become relevant only under Section 27 if they lead to the discovery of new facts.

Requisites for Relevancy under Section 27:

• The fact must be revealed based on information provided by the accused.
• The person providing the information must be the accused individual.
• The individual must be in police custody at the time of confession.
• The facts revealed must be connected to the offense being investigated.

Explanation: Confessions made to the police or during custody are not automatically considered valid confessions in legal proceedings. They are only relevant if they lead to the discovery of new information related to the crime. For example, if an accused person reveals the location of a hidden weapon to the police, this confession can be considered relevant under Section 27. However, if the confession is not made in the presence of a magistrate, it may not be admissible as evidence in court.

Joint Trial of Persons

• When multiple individuals are jointly tried for the same offense, a confession made by one person is considered as evidence against all the accused individuals, not just the one making the confession.
• This section serves as an exception to the general rule that a confession is admissible only against the person making it.
• For a confession to be considered in such cases, the following conditions must be met:
  • The person confessing and others are jointly tried for an offense.
  • All individuals are being tried for the same offense.
  • The confession is related to the crime committed and affects both the confessor and all other individuals involved.
• Example: In a bank robbery case where three individuals are jointly tried, if one of them confesses to planning the robbery and implicates the others, his confession can be used as evidence against all three defendants.