Law of Evidence

SEMESTER V
LAW OF EVIDENCE

RESEARCH PAPER ON THE TOPIC:

CONFESSION AS EVIDENCE

SUBMITTED TO:
PROF. USHA ANDEWAR
NMIMS, KIRIT P MEHTA SCHOOL OF LAW, MUMBAI

SUBMITTED BY:
ANOUSHKAA N V
ROLL NO. - CO43
BA LLB (HONS.)

1|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
 Law of Evidence
1
Abstract

There is an exemption to the hearsay rule that permits the admission of testimony concerning the confession of
another person if the statement had a significant enough likelihood “to expose the declarant to civil or criminal
culpability.” The idea behind this hypothesis is that a rational individual would not knowingly make such a
dishonest confession. The word ‘confession’ assumes that the accused is revealing knowledge that he perceives
the other entity is not previously aware of. Additionally, the term is typically coupled with a confession of a moral
or legal error. Convictions based on false confessions are evidence that not all people who confess are guilty.
However, there is no tried-and-true method available at this time for determining whether or not admissions are
truthful. As a consequence of this, a confession may have a significant impact on both the jury and the judge. The
pursuit of a criminal prosecution, the basis of which is on honesty and precision, strongly relies on confession.
It is an admission of guilt on the part of the accused. The authenticity of the confession is in the accused's favour
because, according to logic, it must be given the most credit because it stems from the strongest sense of guilt.
Therefore, confession is crucial in determining the course of the trial. A confession may be made in court, be
withdrawn, or be made outside of the courtroom. Therefore, it is essential that the courts consider whether such
a confession is admissible in order to rule out the potential of blurred evidence being submitted in a court of law.
This study aims to evaluate the admissibility of the accused's confession in light of the Indian Evidence Act of
1872. The dilemma of the extent to which statements made to police can be utilised against the accused to assess
the validity of any confessions made by the accused has also been addressed.

Keywords – Confession, Evidence, Accused, Police, Indian Evidence Act

1
Anoushkaa N V, 3rd Year, NMIMS, Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai.
2|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
 Law of Evidence

Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 4

2. Research Objectives ..................................................................................... 4

3. Confession as per Indian Evidence Act 1872 ............................................. 5

4. Admissibility of a Confession ...................................................................... 6

5. Various Forms of Confession ...................................................................... 7

6. Evidentiary Value of a Confession.............................................................. 8

7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 9

8. Bibliography ............................................................................................... 10

3|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
 Law of Evidence

1. Introduction

In Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, the word "confession" first arises. It is obvious that the confessions are
just one type of admission since this section is titled "Admission." The Act doesn't define confession. In his
Digest of the Law of Evidence, Mr. Justice Stephen defines confession as "an acknowledgment made at any point
by a person charged with a crime declaring or implying that he committed that act." A confession must either
confess in terms the crime or, at the at least, essentially all the facts that constitute the offence, according to Lord
Atkin's dictum in Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor2. An admission of a highly, even unambiguously,
incriminating fact does not constitute a confession. The Privy Council's ruling in the Pakala Narayana Swami
case was approved by the Supreme Court on two counts in the case of Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab3.

Confessions should, without a doubt, be used in conjunction with other pieces of evidence although they cannot
serve as the entire justification for a conviction.4

First of all, according to the description of a confession, it must either admit guilt explicitly or basically each of
the facts that make the offence. Second, a confused statement that incorporates some confessional statements but
nonetheless results in acquittal is not a confession. A statement that provides self-exculpatory information cannot
be considered a confession because, if accurate, it would nullify the matter or offence.

2. Research Objectives

• To understand the concept of confession as evidence.

• To analyse the evidentiary value of confession
• Study the various forms of confession.
• To study the admissibility of confessions.

2
Pakala Narayan vs. Emperor, (1939) 41 BOMLR 428.
3
Palvinder vs. State of Punjab, 1952 SCR 94.
4
Anushka, Confession, LAW TIMES JOURNAL, 2019.
4|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
 Law of Evidence
3. Confession as per Indian Evidence Act 1872

Confession is dealt with from Section 24, all the way to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the Indian
Evidence Act, section 24 addresses whether or not a confession is relevant to the case. Confession is an
acknowledgment of claims that prove the accused is guilty, and it can come in many different forms, such as
judicial confession, extra-judicial confession, formal confession, retracted confession, etc. 5 Additionally, the
assumption that applies to confessional remarks entails that an alleged offender would just not admit to making
inaccurate claims since doing so would always work against the person saying it. As a result, confession is
considered to be the most reliable type of evidence.

If a confession is made knowingly and willingly, then it has the potential to be considered as conclusive evidence
regarding the acts admitted. Confessions that were made by one, two, or more of the accused while they were
jointly prosecuted for the exact same crime might be considered as evidence against the co-accused as per section
30 of the Evidence Act.

A confession that was made by an alleged offender is not useful in a criminal prosecution if it seems to the court
that the creating of the confession was induced by any enticement, threat, or promise, that had direct reference to
the charge against the alleged offender, advancing from an authority figure and adequate, in the court's opinion
to offer the accused person grounds, which would occur to him sensible, assume that by attempting to make it he
would obtain any benefit or avoid any disadvantage. In other words, the confession cannot be used. Therefore,
the Law makes it quite clear that a confession is not admissible as evidence against an alleged offender unless
the court finds that it was made deliberately.

5
Confession under Indian Evidence Act, (March 27, 2020), http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1547/Confession-under-Indian-
Evidence-Act.html.
5|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
 Law of Evidence

4. Admissibility of a Confession

A confession in its entirety must be either accepted or rejected; it is not within the court's purview to accept just
the inculpatory element while dismissing the exculpatory half as intrinsically implausible. It is impossible to
consider a remark to be a confession if it has elements of both guilt and innocence. A confession that was obtained
via the use of some form of force, intimidation, promise, incentive, or prospect of benefit is understood to be an
exculpatory confession. A self-exculpatory confession cannot be considered a confession under any
circumstances. Before the Palvinder Kaur case, the Supreme Court had the same perspective that it should "follow
the norm," which was established by the Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor.

The Supreme Court, however, took a substantial break from its previous rulings and posited that "in which the
exculpatory component is intrinsically implausible but is refuted by other proof, the court can only consider
inculpatory part." This was a significant change in the court's approach. The Supreme Court overturned
precedents and made the observation that the inculpatory part of a statement should be accepted if it is supported
by corroborating evidence. However, the rest of the statement should be rejected as exculpatory because it tends
to exonerate the person who is charged. The confession made by the accused, in which he makes hints or outright
admits that he was there when the crime was committed, constitutes admissions. An admission that may be
incriminating but does not, on its own, establish the guilt of the person making the admission is not the same
thing as a confession. If there is no other proof to back up the exculpatory part of the statement, "the court must
accept or reject the confession as a whole." The court cannot accept only the inculpatory element while rejecting
the exculpatory element as intrinsically extraordinary. This is because the court cannot accept only the inculpatory
element. In the case of Champarani Mondal v. State of West Bengal, the appellant was accused with murder, and
the supposed confession was read in its entirety to be exculpatory of the allegation. She ought to be cleared of
the charge of murder since such a statement could not serve as the foundation for the conviction, which was
seeking her death. Confessions were made in front of the village panchayat in a case involving the burning of a
bride by a huge number of people, including the accused; however, it was not specified which among them had
really burnt the bride.

It was determined that such a confession could not possibly be utilised in any particular proceeding against any
individual. That in no way constituted a confession in any meaning of the term.

6|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
 Law of Evidence

5. Various Forms of Confession

Judicial Confession - Confessions that are documented in the presence of a magistrate or made in the court as
stipulated by the law are referred to as judicial confessions. As the name suggests, judicial confessions are the
confessions that are documented. If a confession is made in the presence of a magistrate or in the court and
recorded by the magistrate in the due course of legal proceedings, then such confession shall be presumed to be
true and genuine confession upon which the accused can be duly tried. This is because Section 80 of the Indian
Evidence Act governs the evidentiary value of judicial confessions. 6

Extra Judicial Confession - Extra-judicial confessions are those that are made by an accused person in a setting
other than a courtroom or in the presence of a judge that does not constitute a formal legal proceeding. Extra-
judicial confession is the word used to describe a free and voluntary admission of guilt that occurs during a
dialogue with any individual other than a judge. This is in contrast to a plea of guilty on an agreement that is
made before a court by the individual in a fit state of mind. In contrast to a confession obtained through the court
system, an extra-judicial confession has no bearing on the case.7

6
Diva Rai, Confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, IPLEADERS BLOG, (March 27, 2020) https://blog.ipleaders.in/confessions-
under-the-indian-evidence-act/#Judicial_confession.
7
Extra Judicial Confession, SCC ONLINE BLOG, (March 27, 2020), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/extra-judicial-
confession/
7|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
 Law of Evidence

6. Evidentiary Value of a Confession

It is of the utmost importance to be aware of the fact that a confessional declaration made in front of a magistrate
by the accused is regarded as a credible piece of evidence, and that a conviction can be reached on the basis of
such a confessional statement. It should be brought to your attention, however, that the same evidence may be
used against the accused, and it would be enough to secure a conviction if it were. Therefore, the confession that
is offered by an accused individual is considered to be substantial evidence, which is necessary in order for a
conviction to occur.8 For a confession to be admissible as evidence in court, it must be shown that the defendant
made the admission willingly and that it is truthful in every respect. Additional evidence, such as eyewitness
testimony or forensic testing, must also be shown to back up the confession. In addition, an extra-judicial
confession is not considered to be a reliable piece of evidence and, thus, requires the courts to exercise a
considerable deal of caution, as was stated in the case State of Karnataka v. A.B.Nag Raj 9. It is necessary to
present evidence that corroborates the connection between the accused and the offence in issue. In addition, it is
risky to predicate a conviction on a recanted confession if the same statement is not supported by reliable
evidence. This is because the recanted confession may not be accurate. It is against the principles of good practise
and common sense to use a recanted confession as the primary evidence for a conviction unless it can be
adequately supported by other evidence.10

8
John Getreu, Evidence: Admissibility of Confession, WILLIAM & MARY REVIEW OF VIRGINIA LAW, Volume 1 Issue 2.
9
1994) ILLJ 851 SC.
10
Analysis Of Various Aspect Of Law Relating To Confessions, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS AND
ALLIED ISSUES, 2017.
8|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
 Law of Evidence

7. Conclusion

The inclusion of a confession as evidence must only be allowed if it is true and credible, and the same confession
should not be gained by the maltreatment of the accused, thus there has to be proper standards in place to assure
this. These kinds of precautions are required in order to protect the rights of the accused and ensure that they are
able to get credible statements. In addition, the researcher is of the opinion that there is a dilemma with the
presumption of the evidential value of extra-judicial confession, which has a multitude of differing rulings by the
court; as a result, there is an urgent need for a legislation that is decided on the issue at this time. Conviction on
the basis of a confession alone is not adequate to satisfy the requirements of the corpus delicti rule, which is a
common concept of criminal law. The rule recognises the existence of the phenomena of false confessions just
by virtue of the fact that it is intended to prevent the occurrence of erroneous convictions.

The corpus delicti rule is applied in an imperfect manner in several legal systems. Instead, their courts have a
tendency to concentrate on whether or not the confession can be trusted or relied upon, rather than on whether or
not the supporting evidence proves that the crime really happened.

9|Page
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai
 Law of Evidence

8. Bibliography

• Analysis Of Various Aspect Of Law Relating To Confessions, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS AND ALLIED ISSUES, 2017.
• John Getreu, Evidence: Admissibility of Confession, WILLIAM & MARY REVIEW OF VIRGINIA
LAW, Volume 1 Issue 2.

• Arya & Shivshankar, Study on Confession under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL OF PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS ISSN: 1314-3395, Volume 120, No. 5, 2018.

• John Getreu, Evidence: Admissibility of Confession, WILLIAM & MARY REVIEW OF VIRGINIA
LAW, Volume 1 Issue 2.

• P Perera, Admissibility of Confessions in Criminal Proceedings, NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE

REFERENCE SERVICE, 1977.
• Extra Judicial Confession, SCC ONLINE BLOG, (March 27, 2020),
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/extra-judicial-confession/

• Jiby J., Making Confessions in Police Custody Admissible as Evidence is a Terrible Idea, (March 28, 2020),
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/jibber-jabber/making-confessions-in-police-custody-admissible-
as-evidence-is-a-terrible-idea/.

• Diva Rai, Confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, IPLEADERS BLOG, (March 27, 2020)
https://blog.ipleaders.in/confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act/#Judicial_confession.

10 | P a g e
Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai