“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

47

(..6..)

CONFESSION (Ss.24 to 30)

QUESTION BANK

1.

2.

3.

Discuss the principles governing Law relating to 'Confession' and explain

their judicial value.

Explain the general principles concerning 'Confession' as per the Indian

Evidence Act, 1872.

Explain the general principles governing 'confession' and explain its judicial

value.

SHORT NOTES

Retreated Confession.

SYNOPSIS

1.

I. Definition: -

II. Kinds of confession: -

1. Judicial Confession: -

Retracted Confession: -

2. Extra Judicial Confession: -

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

48

III.

Confession when irrelevant: -

1. Confession caused by inducement threat or promise from a person in

authority (S.24):

a) Persons in authority: -

b) Inducement threat or promise: -

2. Confession to Police (S.25): -

3. Confession by accused while in the custody of police (S.26): -

IV. Confession when relevant: -

1.

Confession leading to the discovery of fact (S.27): -

a) Ingredients of (S.27): -

b) Constitutional Validity of S.27: -

Confession after removal of an impression of inducement threat or promise

(S.28): -

2.

3.

4.

Confession made under promise of Secrecy (S.29): -

Confession of co-accused (S.30): -

Explanation:

V.

Distinction between 'Admission' and 'Confession' –

1. Civil / Criminal: -

2. Genus / Species: -

3. Evidence Value: -

4. Against / Favorable: -

5. Confession of co-accused / Admission of the defendant: -

6. Admission or confession by himself: -

7. Prove own statement: -

I. Definition: -

Ss.24 to 30 deal with the confession.

The Evidence Act does not define' confession. ' However, Stephen's

definition of confession in his 'Digest of the Law of Evidence' was prevalent until

1939.

1.

Stephen defined 'confession' as 'an admission made at any time by a person

charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the

crime.'

2.

confession.

Lord Atkin observed in 'Privy Council' that-

"A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate all the

In 1939 the Privy Council in Narayan Swami V. Emperor defined

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

49

facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact,

even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not in itself a confession, e.g. an

admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife

or revolver which caused the death would not be consistent with the natural use of

language to construe confession."

In other words, 'confession' may be defined as "an admission of the offence

by a person charged with the offence".

II.

Kinds of confession: -

Confessions are of two kinds, viz. –

Judicial Confession: -

1.

Judicial Confessions are made before the magistrate or Court in due course

of legal proceedings. Thus, a confession made before the beginning of the trial to

the magistrate, who records them in accordance with the provisions of S.164 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, and a confession made before the judge during the trial

is called a judicial Confession. The judicial confession of an accused is good

evidence, and he can be convicted on the strength of it.

Retracted Confession: -

A confession is called 'retracted' when the maker withdraws it at the time of

trial before a sentence is passed against him. In other words, a retracted confession

is a confession made by an accused person and subsequently retracted (taken back).

Retraction of confession is a common phenomenon in India. Normally, a

confession of guilt is the most conclusive evidence that one can have. In such

circumstances, questions about the evidentiary value of such a Retracted

Confession may arise. Does the question often arise as to whether a Retracted

Confession may form the basis of conviction if believed to be true and voluntarily

made? To arrive at this conclusion, the Court must consider the reasons for making

the confession or retracting it and the facts and circumstances surrounding it. There

is no absolute rule that a Retracted Confession can't be acted upon unless the same

is corroborated materially.

Following are some of the rules regarding Retracted Confessions –

i)

A confession is not to be regarded as involuntary merely because it is

restricted.

ii)

iii)

Against the maker of confession (accused), it may form the basis of

conviction if it is believed by the Court to be true and voluntarily made.

Against the co-accused, Court should not rely on it without independent

corroborative evidence.

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

50

In Subramania Gaunde Vs. The State of Madras¹.

Facts: - The accused was tried for murder. At the time of the investigation, he

confessed, giving full details of how he committed the murder. A bloodstained

drawer and a banian worn were seized from him. On his information, a

bloodstained bed sheet was recorded. At the trial, the accused denied confession

having been made voluntarily, i.e., retracted his confession.

Held: - The confession was voluntary, and the reasons for retraction are untrue. In

the absence of any other evidence, the evidence of blood on the drawer, banian,

and bed sheet was considered to corroborate the confession, and his conviction was

upheld.

2. Extra Judicial Confession: -

Extra Judicial Confessions are those confessions that are made by the

accused person elsewhere than before the magistrate or in the Court. Confessions

made to private persons, police officers, or judicial officers in their private capacity

are instances of such Extra Judicial Confessions.

Extra Judicial Confessions are regarded as the weakest type of evidence.

Therefore, the Court has to use it with great caution. The Court generally requires

corroboration to such Extra Judicial Confession.

III. Confession when irrelevant: -

A confession is irrelevant and inadmissible if made in the following cases

(mentioned under sections 24 to 26)-

1.

authority (S.24): -

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal

proceeding: -

Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a person in

i)

if the making of the confession appears to the Court

.

ii)

iii)

iv)

v)

to have been caused by any inducement, threat, or promise.

having reference to the charge against an 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 (accused) reasonable for supposing that

vi)

vii) by making it (confession), he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil

of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

a) Persons in authority: -

The section provides that the confession caused by inducement, threat, or

¹[AIR 1958 SC 66]

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

51

promise by the person in authority is inadmissible. A 'person in authority' is a

person engaged in the apprehension, detention, or prosecution of the accused or

the person empowered to examine him. It would also include a person who is

concerned with the investigation of a case. Thus, 'A person in authority' would

mean 'police' who is in charge of the investigation and the magistrate who is to try

the case. Person in authority also includes the Zamindar of the accused, the master

of the accused, or any other person like Village Magistrate, Mukhia or President

of Village Panchayat, etc., wielding some influence over the accused. It must be

borne in mind that a person in authority is one who exercises some influence over

the accused.

b) Inducement threat or promise: -

If the confession is caused by an inducement threat or promise by the person

in authority is inadmissible. It signifies that any sort of threat or violence must not

obtain the confession nor by any promise, either direct or indirect, express or

implied, howsoever slight the hope or fear produced thereby may be.

2.

Confession to Police (S.25): -

This section states that a confession made to the police officer is

inadmissible in evidence. An exception to this section is S.27. It is because a

confession made to the police is untrustworthy. The reason for the rule is to stop

extortion of confession by the police and to avoid the danger of admitting false

confessions. Similarly, the statements of the accused during an investigation are

excluded by S.162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, the fact that the police

officer is or is not an investigating officer is immaterial.

Every statement made to a police officer by an accused person is not a

confession, and statements which are not of incriminating nature are admissible.

The word 'confession' in this section is not restricted to actual admissions of guilt

but includes inculpatory statements from which inference of guilt can be made or

which suggest the guilt of the person making it. Confession made to a police officer

by a person when he was not accused of any offence is admissible, but if the person

subsequently becomes an accused and the statement is tendered in evidence against

him, it must be treated in the same way as if he had been accused at the time of

making it.

In Queen Express Vs. Pancham².

Facts: - An accused person makes a confession to a police officer in the hearing

and presence of a private person.

²4 ALL 198.

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

52

The point in the issue was whether a private person could give evidence of

the confession by the accused?

Held: - The private person cannot give evidence of the confession by the accused

in the presence of a police officer.

3.

Confession by the accused while in the custody of police (S.26): -

When any fact: -

(i)

is deposed to

(ii)

as discovered in consequence.

(iii) of information received from an accused person.

(iv) in the custody of a police officer.

(v)

so much of such information (whether it amounts to a confession or not).

(vi) as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.

(vii) may be proved.

The section lays down that no confession which any person makes while in

police custody can be proved against him unless it was made in the immediate

presence of the magistrate.

Explanation to the section provides that 'magistrate' in this section does not

include the Head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency

of Fort St. George or elsewhere unless the Headman is a magistrate exercising the

powers of a magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1882.

S.25 applies to confessions made to the police, while S.26 applies to

confessions made to persons other than the police when in police custody.

IV. Confession when relevant: -

A confession is relevant and admissible in the cases mentioned under

sections 27 to 29.

1.

Confession leading to the discovery of the fact (S.27): -

This section states that if the discovery of a fact supports the confession of

an accused, then it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted. This

section is an exception to Ss. 25 and 26. This section allows that part of the

statement made by the accused to the police (whether it amounts to a confession

or not), which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, to be proved. Thus,

even a confessional statement made to police that relates distinctly to the 'discovery

of fact', such fact may be proved under S.27. The term 'discovery of fact' here has

some reference to some material object capable of being exhibited, e.g. knife,

spear, khurpi, revolver, clothes worn by the deceased, ornaments, etc.

However, the discovery must have resulted from some information from the

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

53

accused. If the police know the whereabouts of the thing alleged to be discovered,

the information cannot be said to have led to it and is inadmissible.

a) Ingredients of (S.27): -

1. The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue.

2. The fact must have been discovered, e.g. knife, spear, revolver, ornaments, etc.

3. The discovery must have resulted from some information received from the

accused.

4. The person giving the information must be accused of any offence.

5. He must be in the custody of a police officer.

6. Only that much information, which relates distinctly to the discovered fact, may

be proved.

In Jaffer Husain Vs. The State of Maharashtra³.

Fact: The accused was charged with stealing a diamond packet. He stated, 'I will

point out one Ram Singh, at Bombay Central Railway Station to whom I have

given a packet containing diamonds of different sizes more than 200 in number'.

He led the police to the waiting hall and pointed out the accused No.3. But it was

found that the police had already learned from a newspaper about the involvement

of accused No.3 in the crime and his custody of diamonds.

Held: The accused's statement is inadmissible in evidence. As the accused was

deposed, no new facts, like diamonds, etc., were discovered, but police beforehand

knew this.

b) Constitutional Validity of S.27: -

Art.20 (3) of the Indian Constitution reads, "No person accused of an offence

shall be compelled to be a witness against himself."

The above clause deals with the doctrine of 'testimonial compulsion' or 'Rule

against self-incrimination'. According to this Rule, no person can be compelled to

testify against himself. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused lies on the

prosecution. The prosecution's responsibility is to prove the guilt of the accused by

bringing necessary evidence. The prosecution cannot compel the accused to testify

against himself. Such compulsion violates the right of the accused under Art.20(3)

of the constitution.

In several cases, the constitutionality of S.27 was challenged on the ground

that using the information given by the accused, which leads to the discovery of a

fact against him, violates Art.20(3), which makes the accused a witness against

himself. Some High Courts have held that any information obtained from an

³AIR 1970 SC 1934

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

54

accused under compulsion leading to the discovery is irrelevant under section 27.

In contrast, other High Courts have held that it is relevant and does not violate Art.

27.

However, this controversy was set at rest by the Supreme Court in the

State of Bombay V. Kati Kalu Oghad⁴.

Supreme Court held that – the mere fact that the accused was in police custody

does not give rise to a presumption that the information was given under

compulsion. The information becomes inadmissible only when it is proved by

positive evidence that it was obtained under compulsion.

2.

Confession after removal of an impression of inducement threat or

promise (S. 28): -

If such confession, as referred to in S. 24, is made after the impression

caused by any inducement, threat, or promise is (in the opinion of the Court) fully

removed, it is relevant.

This section is to be read with S. 24. S.24 makes confession under threat,

inducement, or promise inadmissible. This section says that if the confession is

made after the impression created by such threat, inducement or promise is

completely removed, the confession will be admissible.

Whether the impression has been removed is a question of fact, and it must

be judged in the light of the circumstances of each case.

In Emperor V. Ganesh Chandra Golden⁵.

Facts: An accused made a confession to a Panchayat before arrest. The villagers

kept him in custody until the police arrived the next day. The police formally

arrested him and presented him before the magistrate, who recorded his confession.

Held: - that the improper influence employed by the Panchayat continued to the

time of the recording of the confession by the magistrate and that such confession

is inadmissible under section 28.

3.

Confession made under promise of Secrecy (S.29): -

According to this section, a relevant confession does not become irrelevant

merely (i.e. not hit by Ss.24 to 26) because it was made –

i)

Under a promise of secrecy, or

ii)

iii)

iv)

In consequence of a deception practised on the accused or

When the accused was drunk or

In answer to questions that which accused need not have answered; or

⁴[AIR 1961 SC 1808]

⁵(1922)

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

55

v)

As a consequence of the accused not receiving the warning that he was not

bound to make it, and if he makes it, it might be used against him.

However, statements made in sleep by a person are not receivable in evidence.

S.164 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that the magistrate shall,

before recording a confession made to him during the course of an investigation,

explain to the person making it (accused) that he is not bound to confess. If he

makes it, it may be used as evidence against him.

This raises the question of whether S.29 of the Evidence Act overrides the

requirements of S.164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether a confession

recorded without complying with the provisions of S.164 of the Code is

admissible. Different high courts have expressed different views on this issue.

Some have held that non-compliance with S.164 will make the evidence

inadmissible, while others have held that it will not make it inadmissible.

However, the Privy Council has held that a confession recorded by the

magistrate without complying with requirements laid down under S.164 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure would not be admissible. Even the Supreme Court has

followed the same decision in several cases.

But the Supreme Court has eventually set this controversy at rest in the Dagdu

V. State of Maharashtra.

Facts: - Ten girls and a woman were murdered to extract blood. Accused persons

confessed to the crime. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate recorded their confessions

without complying with the requirements of S.164 of the Criminal Procedure

Code.

Supreme Court held that – Failure to comply with S.164 of the Criminal

Procedure Code would not render the confession inadmissible in evidence. The

Court observed that S.29 of the Evidence Act expressly provides such confession

admissible.

4.

Confession of co-accused (S. 30): -

When more persons than one (Joint Offenders) are being tried jointly for the

same offence, and the confession is made by one of such persons affecting himself,

and some other of such persons (co-accused) is proved, the Court may take into

consideration, such confession as against such other persons (co-accused) as well

as against the person who makes such confession.

Explanation: - 'Offence' as used in this section includes the abetment of or attempt

to commit the offence.

Under English Law, such a confession of co-accused is excluded. In India,

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

56

however, S.30 of the Evidence Act makes it admissible. However, the confession

of the co-accused is a very weak kind of evidence, and no conviction can be based

solely on such a confession. Therefore, a statement under S.30 is not recognised as

evidence under S.3 of the Evidence Act.

The words "Court may take into consideration" mentioned in S.30 indicate

that it is not binding on the Court as a mandatory rule of evidence to consider the

confession of co-accused. Still, it may be used in the corroboration of other

evidence. Even the confession of the co-accused itself is not a piece of substantive

evidence.

In Kashmir Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh⁶.

Supreme Court observed that – the confession of co-accused is not evidence, but

if there is other evidence on which conviction can be based, such confession can

be referred to as leading some assurance to the verdict.

V.

Distinction between 'Admission' and 'Confession' –

Following are the distinctions between 'Admission' and 'Confession' -

Civil / Criminal: -

1.

A confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to

be proved against him in a criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an

offence by him. While Admission is usually applied to civil transactions. But no

such strict distinction can be maintained under Indian Law.

2.

Genus / Species :-

Under Indian Law, 'confession' falls under the heading 'Admissions', and

Admission' is more comprehensive; it includes 'confession'. Thus, Admission is

the genus of which 'confession' is the species.

3.

Evidentiary Value: -

Deliberately and voluntarily, confession may be accepted as conclusive,

whereas an Admission is not conclusive, though it may operate as an estoppel.

4.

Against / Favorable: -

A confession always goes against the person making it, while an Admission

may be used favourably on behalf of a person making it.

5.

Confession of co-accused / Admission of the defendant: -

The confession of one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same

offence can be used against the co-accused. However, an Admission by one of the

several defendants in a suit is no evidence against another defendant.

6.

Himself or through others: -

⁶[AIR 1952 SC 159]

“Law Master’s Publication”

‘Confession’

Prof.S. D. Bhosale

57

Confession always proceeds from a person who has committed an offence

or is accused of an offence. However, under S.18, 19, and 20 of the Evidence Act,

statements made by certain persons who are not parties to the suit are regarded as

Admissions against parties.

7.

Proves own statement: -

A confession is an admission of guilt about a crime and, therefore,

necessarily runs against the interests of the accused. On the other hand, the term

'admission' refers to every statement, whether it runs in favour of or against the

party making it. Under S.21, a person in certain exceptional cases is permitted to

prove his own statement.

*****