Confession | Criminal Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Confession 

• Confession refers to a formal statement in which an individual admits their guilt in relation to a crime. Although the term "confession" is not explicitly defined in the Evidence Act, it encompasses the concept of admission. However, it is important to note that while all confessions involve admissions, not all admissions qualify as confessions.
• A confession must either admit the offense in clear terms or substantially acknowledge all the facts that constitute the offense. If a statement falls short of this comprehensive acknowledgment of guilt, it is considered an admission rather than a confession, even if it contains some incriminating facts that, when combined with other evidence, suggest the accused's guilt. Such a statement is merely an admission because the person making it is stating something against their own interest. Therefore, it is crucial that such statements are made in circumstances free from suspicion; otherwise, they violate the constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3), which protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves. A direct acknowledgment of guilt is regarded as a confession.
• In the case of  Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 P.C. 47  , the court addressed the question of whether statements from which an accused's guilt can be inferred constitute a confession. The court ruled that a confession must either explicitly admit the offense or substantially acknowledge all the facts constituting the offense. An admission of a strongly incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating one, does not in itself amount to a confession. For instance, an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver used in the death, without any explanation of another person's possession, does not qualify as a confession.

Scope and relevance of statements under section 164 of CrPC 

• Confession refers to a formal statement in which an individual admits their guilt in relation to a crime. Although the term "confession" is not explicitly defined in the Evidence Act, it encompasses the concept of admission. However, it is important to note that while all confessions involve admissions, not all admissions qualify as confessions.
• A confession must either admit the offense in clear terms or substantially acknowledge all the facts that constitute the offense. If a statement falls short of this comprehensive acknowledgment of guilt, it is considered an admission rather than a confession, even if it contains some incriminating facts that, when combined with other evidence, suggest the accused's guilt. Such a statement is merely an admission because the person making it is stating something against their own interest. Therefore, it is crucial that such statements are made in circumstances free from suspicion; otherwise, they violate the constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3), which protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves. A direct acknowledgment of guilt is regarded as a confession.
• In the case of  Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor AIR 1939 P.C. 47  , the court addressed the question of whether statements from which an accused's guilt can be inferred constitute a confession. The court ruled that a confession must either explicitly admit the offense or substantially acknowledge all the facts constituting the offense. An admission of a strongly incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating one, does not in itself amount to a confession. For instance, an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver used in the death, without any explanation of another person's possession, does not qualify as a confession.

Types of Confessions: Inculpatory and Exculpatory Confessions 

• Inculpatory Confession:  This type of confession involves admitting to something wrong or implicating oneself in guilt. For example, if a person confesses to committing a crime or being involved in illegal activities, it is considered an inculpatory confession.
• Exculpatory Confession:  In contrast, an exculpatory confession absolves the accused of any guilt or wrongdoing. This type of confession may involve denying involvement in a crime or providing an alibi that clears the accused of responsibility.

Form of Confession 

• A confession can take various forms. It may be made directly to the court, in which case it is known as a judicial confession. Alternatively, it can be made to someone outside the court, which is referred to as an extra-judicial confession. Confessions can even occur through private conversations with oneself that are overheard by others.
• In the case of  Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor  , the court ruled that the accused's admission of guilt to the police did not constitute a valid confession because there was no direct admission of guilt.
• In the case of  Sahoo v. State of UP  , the accused was charged with the murder of his daughter-in-law. On the day of the murder, he was heard saying, "I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels." This statement was considered a relevant confession, as it did not require communication to another person for its relevance.

Who Can Record Confession Statements? 

•  Power to Record:  Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers Metropolitan Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates to record confession statements during the course of an investigation or at any time before the commencement of inquiry or trial.
•  Explanation of Rights:  Before recording a confession, the magistrate must explain to the person making the confession that they are not obligated to do so and that the confession may be used as evidence against them.
•  Case Reference:  In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), it was emphasized that the magistrate should inform the accused making a confession that they are not being made an approver and that anything said by them will be used as evidence against them.
•  Mandatory Compliance:  Compliance with the requirements of Section 164(2) is crucial. Failure to comply renders the confession inadmissible in evidence.

Object of Recording 164 Statements 

• The recording of statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) serves important purposes in the legal process.
• Firstly, it aims to deter witnesses from altering their versions of events after the fact.
• Secondly, it addresses the immunity from prosecution regarding information provided by witnesses under Section 162 of the CrPC.
• Recording witnesses' statements under Section 164 also minimizes the risk of witnesses changing their testimonies during the trial due to concerns of perjury.
• When police record statements under Section 162, they cannot administer an oath or obtain the witness's signature. However, under Section 164, a magistrate can administer an oath and obtain the witness's signature, creating a moral obligation that reduces the likelihood of the witness turning hostile.
• Despite the advantages, the evidence of witnesses whose statements are recorded under Section 164 should be approached with caution.

Procedural Safeguards 

• The Indian Constitution safeguards an accused individual's right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), which states that no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to testify against themselves. This principle is rooted in the legal maxim "nemo teneteur prodre accussare seipsum," meaning that no one is obligated to incriminate themselves.
• Confessions, being self-incriminating statements, must be given voluntarily. Therefore, Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) incorporates various procedural safeguards to ensure the voluntary nature of confessions.
• When recording a confession, the magistrate must follow the procedures outlined in Section 281 for recording the examination of accused persons. The confession record should be signed by both the magistrate and the accused. Additionally, the magistrate must include a memorandum at the end of the record as per subsection (4). If the magistrate lacks jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offense, they should forward the recorded confession to the appropriate magistrate.
• Compliance with the provisions of Section 164 of the CrPC, as well as the rules and guidelines established by the High Court, is essential not only in form but also in substance. If a confession is not recorded by the magistrate in accordance with Section 164, it becomes inadmissible in evidence.

Evidentiary Value of 164 Statements 

• The evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC is significant, but there are important considerations to keep in mind. Firstly, these statements cannot be treated as substantive evidence if the maker does not testify to such facts on oath during the trial. Before relying on a confession made before a judicial magistrate under Section 164, the court must ensure that the procedural requirements outlined in subsections (2) to (4) are met. These safeguards are crucial to confirm that the confession is made voluntarily by the accused after being informed of the consequences of making such a confession.
• The court's focus should be on determining whether the accused was free from any threats, coercion, or inducements when making the confession. In the case of Parmananda vs. State of Assam (2004(2) ALD Crl 657), it was emphasized that a confession should not be the sole basis for conviction. However, it is admissible, and a conviction may be based on it if it is found to be truthful and voluntary. In some cases, corroboration may be necessary.
• A confession that is not retracted during the trial and is accepted by the accused in their statement under Section 313 of the CrPC can be fully relied upon. In such instances, the conviction based on the confession, along with other circumstantial evidence, is sustainable.
• If the accused does not challenge the validity of their statement under Section 164 of the CrPC during their statement under Section 313 or during cross-examination, the confession is considered credible. Allegations regarding the presence of police officers during the recording of the confession should be supported by evidence. When the requirements of Section 164(2) of the CrPC are fulfilled, the confession statement is deemed acceptable.