1.
Introduction
The word “confession”
appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. This
section comes under the heading of Admission so it is clear that the
confessions are merely one species of admission. Confession is not defined in
the Act. Mr Justice Stephen in his Digest of the law of Evidence defines
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.”
In Pakala
Narayan Swami v. Emperor[1]
Lord Atkin observed “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”. In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab[2]
the Supreme Court approved the Privy Council decision in the Pakala Narayana Swami
case over two scores.
Firstly, the
definition of confession is that it must either admits 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 an acquittal, is no confession. Thus, a statement that contains a self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter or offence,
cannot amount to a confession. However in the case Nishi Kant Jha v State of Bihar[3]
the Supreme Court pointed out that there was nothing wrong or relying on a part
of the confessional statement and rejecting the rest, and for this purpose, the
Court drew support from English authorities. When there is enough evidence to
reject the exculpatory part of the accused person’s statements, the Court may
rely on the inculpatory par
2. Admission
Section 17 to 23 of the Indian
Evidence Act specifically deals with the portions related to admission.
As per section 17 of The Indian
Evidence Act, 1872:
“An admission is a statement, oral or
documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to
any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons,
and under the circumstances mentioned in the act.
Admissions can be either formal or
informal. Formal admission is also called judicial admission which is
made at the time of the judicial proceeding, while informal admission is those
admissions that are made during the normal day to day activity like in the
normal course of life. Formal admission or judicial admissions are
completely admissible by the Court of law under Section 58 of the same act and
has much higher probative value into substantive any fact. They are generally
rebuttable in nature and require no further proof to disprove the facts
admitted in a court of law unless the court asks for the same.
In, Nagindas Ramdas v
Dalpatram Ichharam[4] the Supreme Court of India explained the
effects of admission, that admissions are generally true and clear of any
ambiguity and they shall be considered as the best proof for proving any fact
in issue or relevant fact by the admission of certain facts. On the other hand,
the informal admission which is made during the day to day activity just help
in bringing the facts either by an oral or written statement by the admission
of either party[5].
Under English law, the term ‘admission’ is specifically
utilised in civil proceedings, and on the other hand, the term ‘confession’ is
used in criminal proceedings. But, under the Indian statute, the Evidence Act
didn’t distinguish much between both the term rather the Indian Evidence Act
short distinguished as that- confession is a statement which is made by the
accused declaring himself guilty.
2.1. ADMISSION WHEN RELEVANT (SEC 18-20)
An Admission is relevant if it is made by:
1) A party to the proceeding;
2) An agent authorized by such party.
3) A party suing or being sued in a representative character making
admission while holding such character.
4) A person who has a proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject
matter of the suit during the continuance of such interest.
5) A person from whom the parties to the suit have derived their
interest in the subject matter of the suit during the continuance of such
interest. (Section 18)
6) A person whose position it is necessary to prove in a suit, if such
statements would be relevant in a suit brought by against himself (Section 19.)
7) A person to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for
information in reference to a matter in Dispute (Section 20.)
2.2. EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF ADMISSION
Admission is the best evidence
against the party making the same unless it is untrue and made under the
circumstances, which does not make it binding on him. Admission by a party is
substantive evidence of the facts admitted by him. Admissions duly proved are
admissible evidence irrespective of whether the party making the admission
appeared in the Witness box or not. In fact, Admission is the best substantive
evidence that an opposite party can rely upon it. The evidentiary value of
admission only by the government is merely relevant and not conclusive, unless the party to whom they are made has acted upon and thus altered his detriment.
3. Confession
The term ‘confession’ is
nowhere defined or expressed in the Indian Evidence Act, but the inference
explained under the definition of admission in Section 17 of
Indian Evidence Act also applies to confession in the same manner.
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. We may also define
the confession in other words that the admission by the accused in
the criminal proceedings is a confession[6].
3.1. FORMS
OF CONFESSION
A confession may occur
in many forms. When it is made to the court itself then it will be called
judicial confession and when it is made to anybody outside the court, in that
case, it will be called extra-judicial confession. It may even consist of
conversation to oneself, which may be produced in evidence if overheard by
another. For example, in Sahoo v. State
of U.P[7]
the accused who was charged with the murder of his daughter-in-law with whom he
was always quarrelling was seen on the day of the murder going out of the
house, saying words to the effect: “I have finished her and with her the daily
quarrels.” The statement was held to be a confession relevant in evidence, for
it is not necessary for the relevancy of a confession that it should be
communicated to some other person.
3.2. Judicial
confession
Judicial Confession Are
those which are made before a magistrate or in court in the due course of legal
proceedings. A judicial confession has been defined to mean “plea of guilty on the arrangement (made before a court) if made freely by a person in a fit state of
mind.
3.3. Extra-judicial
confessions
Are those which are
made by the accused elsewhere than before a magistrate or in the 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. A man after the commission of a crime may
write a letter to his relation or friend expressing his sorrow over the matter.
This may amount to a confession. Extra-judicial confession can be accepted and
can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.
Extra-judicial confession is generally made before a private person that includes
even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a magistrate
not empowered to record confessions under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. or a
magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when the section
164 does not apply[8].
3.4. EVIDENTIARY
VALUE OF CONFESSION
A confessional a statement made by the accused before a magistrate is good evidence and accused
be convicted on the basis of it. A confession can obviously be used against the maker of it and is in itself sufficient to support his conviction. Rajasthan
High Court has also held that the confession of an accused person is
substantive evidence and a conviction can be based solely on a confession.
In the Number of cases it
has been found by the courts that the accused can only be punished on the basis
of the confession when it is established that the confession made by the
accused was voluntary and there was not any force or compulsion upon the
accused while making a confession.
Now the settled law is
that a conviction can be based on confession only if it is proved to be
voluntary and true. If corroboration is needed it is enough that the general
trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence that would tally
with the contents of the confession. General corroboration is enough. Value of
extra-judicial confession- extra-judicial confessions are not usually
considered with favour but that does not mean that such a confession coming
from a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the
circumstances which support his statement should not be believed.
In-State of Karnataka v. A.B.Nag Raj[9]
there was an allegation that the deceased girl was killed by her father and
step-mother in the National park. The alleged extra-judicial confession was
made by the accused during detention in the forest office. No mention of said
confession in the report given to neither police nor any witness present there
mentioning about the same confession. This extra-judicial confession cannot be
relied on.
3.5. CONFESSION
TO POLICE
Section 25 – confession
to police officer not to be proved
Reasons for exclusion
of confession to police- another variety of confessions that are under the
evidence act regarded as involuntary is those made to personnel. Section 25
expressly declares that such confessions shall not be proved.
However, Section 26 prohibits the judicial bodies to prove the guilt of the accused by his confession which is made to police in police
custody. Section 26 imposes a partial ban on provisions stated
in Section 25 that confession made to the police officer in police custody
maybe admissible if the confession recorded in the immediate presence of a magistrate
In Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra[10],
the Supreme Court noted:
The archaic attempt to secure confessions by
hook or by crook seems to be the be-all and end-all of the police
investigation. The police should remember that confession may not always be a
short-cut to a solution. Instead of trying to “start” from a confession they
should strive to “arrive” at it. Else, when they are busy on their short-route
to success, good evidence may disappear due to inattention to real clues. Once
a confession is obtained, there is often flagging of zeal for a full and
thorough investigation with a view to establishing the case de hors the
confession, later, being inadmissible for one reason or other.
3.5. Confession by co-accused
The Supreme Court in the case of Pancho
v. State of Haryana[11] held that the confessions made by the
co-accused do not have much evidentiary value and they cannot be considered as
a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore the confession made by the
co-accused can only be used to corroborate the conclusion drawn out by other
probative evidence.
4. Difference
between Confession and Admission
|
|
Confession |
Admission |
|
1 |
The confession is something which is made by
the person who is charged with any criminal offences and such statements may
infer any reasoning for concluding or suggesting that he is guilty of a
crime. |
When any person voluntarily acknowledges the
existence of any facts in issue or facts. |
|
2 |
The concept of confession usually deals with
the criminal proceedings and there is no such specific section defining confession. |
The concept of admission usually deals with
the civil proceedings and section 17 specifically deal with the definition
of admission. |
|
3 |
If the confessions are purposefully and are
made on someone’s own will then it may be accepted as conclusive of the facts
confessed by the confessor. |
Admissions may be operated as estoppels
because they are not conclusive as to the facts admitted by the person who in
his statement admits some facts. |
|
4 |
Confessions are always used or go against the
confessor of the statements. |
Admissions may be used with respect to the person who has admitted any facts or statements under the exception of
Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
|
5 |
Confessions confessed by more than one person
jointly for the same offence can be considered against others accused of the
same crime under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. |
As it is previously observed that admission cannot be used against the person who is admitting the facts by any statements as they don’t have much probative evidentiary value. Hence the
admission made by the different personalities of the same suit cannot be used
as evidence against other persons. |
|
6 |
Confession is the direct admission of a matter
or facts of the cases either in the form of a written or oral statement. |
Admission gives a conclusion about the
liability of the person who is admitting any facts or matter either in the
form of oral or written statements. |
5.
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”
Reference
[1] (1939) 41 BOMLR 428
[2] 1952 AIR 354, 1952 SCR 94
[3] 1969 AIR 422, 1969 SCR (1)1033
[4] 1974 1 SCC 242
[5]
Confession Under the Indian
Evidence Act, written by Sparsh Mali, available at:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act/#Confession_by_co-accused
[Visited on 2/12/2020]
[6]
Confession Under the Indian Evidence Act, by shraddha, available at:
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1547/Confession-under-Indian-Evidence-Act.html
[Visited on 1/12/2020].
[7] 1966 AIR 40, 1965 SCR (3) 86
[8]
Difference between
Confession and Admission Under Evidence Act, by Tripaksha Litigation, available
at:
https://tripakshalitigation.com/difference-between-admission-and-confession-under-indian-evidence-law/
[9] JT 1993 (4) SC 27
[10] 1977 SCR (3) 636
[11]
AIR 2012 SC P.523
0 Comments