Confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

lawbhoomi.com/confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act-1872

Introduction
The most satisfactory evidence in a case is the confession made by the accused. The basic
application of it rests on the truth and accuracy of the said confession. It comes out from a great
sense of guilt. Confession can be the decision-makers in a trial. In the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 the confessions are not explicitly defined but it comes under the category of admission, the
accused admits to his guilt.

The confession of an accused cannot be taken as the sole reason for conviction, it should be
corroborated with other evidence. However, in a few instances, a confession made by the accused
may result in mistreatment of the subject, due to its high probative value. Under the Indian evidence
act, Section 24 to Section 30 deals with “confession”. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section
164, 281, and 463 deals with confessions.

Meaning of confession

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.”

Firstly, that the definition if confession is that it must either admit 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 acquittal, is no confession.

Thus, a statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter or
offence, cannot amount to confession.

Meaning of admission
The word ‘Admission’ expressed in the Evidence Act means “When any person voluntarily
acknowledges the existence of any facts in issue or facts”. Like in the case of confession we
discovered that confession is not much described in the Evidence Act in the same manner the
Indian Evidence Act also has not done much effective work on expressing, the term ‘Admission’ in
an outspread sense.

Section 17 of Indian Evidence Act, defines admission as any statement made in either form such as
oral, documentary or in electronic form which has enough probative value to suggest or conclude
any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact.

Difference between Confession and Admission

1/5
 S. Confession Admission
No.

1. The confession is something When any person voluntarily acknowledges the

which is made by the person existence of any facts in issue or facts.
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.

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 Admissions may be operated as estoppels

purposefully and are made on
someone’s own will then it may
be accepted as conclusive of
the facts confessed by the
confessor.
because they are not conclusive as to the facts
admitted by the person who in his statement
admit some facts.

4. Confessions are always used Admissions may be used with respect to the
or go against the confessor of person who has admitted any facts or
the statements. statements under the exception of Section 21 of
the Indian Evidence Act.

5. Confessions confessed by As it is previously observed that admission

more than one person jointly
for the same offence can be
considered against other
accused of the same crime
under Section 30 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
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 gives the conclusion about the

admission of matter or facts of liability of the person who is admitting any facts
the cases either in the form of or matter either in the form of oral or written
a written or oral statement. statements.

In, Sahoo v. the State of U.P, newly wedded women joined the new house of her husband and
after some time the accused murdered his daughter-in-law, and after murdering her daughter-in-law
he screamed “I have finished her” and in the course of his statement many of his neighbours heard
his statement stating “I have finished her”. In this case, the court observed that the statements
made by the accused should be considered as confession and they shall be regarded as
confessionary in nature.

Forms of confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

2/5
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. the accused who was
charged with the murder of his daughter-in-law with whom he was always quarreling 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.

Judicial confession under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

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 arrangement (made before a court)
if made freely by a person in a fit state of mind.

Extra-judicial confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Are those which are made by the accused elsewhere than before a magistrate or in 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 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 private person which includes even 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 section 164 does not
apply.

Difference between judicial and extra-judicial confession

3/5
 Judicial confession Extra-judicial confession

1. Extra-judicial confession are those which

1. Judicial confessions are those
which are made to a judicial
magistrate under section 164 of
Cr.P.C. or before the court during
committal proceeding or during trial.
are made to any person other than those
authorized by law to take confession. It may be
made to any person or to police during
investigation of an offence.

2. To prove judicial confession the 2. Extra-judicial confession are proved by

person to whom judicial confession is calling the person as witness before whom the
made need not be called as witness. extra-judicial confession is made.

3. Judicial confession can be relied as 3. Extra-judicial confession alone cannot be

proof of guilt against the accused relied it needs support of other supporting
person if it appears to the court to be evidence.
voluntary and true.

4. A conviction may be based on 4. It is unsafe to base conviction on extra-

judicial confession. judicial confession.

In, State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh the Supreme Court in this case held that an extra-judicial
confession’s value only increases when it is clearly consistent and convincing to the conclusion of
the case otherwise the accused cannot be held liable for the conviction solely on the basis of the
confession made by him.

In, Balwinder Singh v. State the Supreme Court has mentioned some guidelines in the form of
deciding the case that in the case of extrajudicial confession it the court must check for the
credibility of the person making the confession and all of his statements shall be tested by the court
to conclude whether the person who made the confession is trustworthy or not, otherwise a person
who is not so trustworthy then his statements cannot be used for making any inference to prove the
guilt of the accused.

In, Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu the Supreme Court while deciding the case has made few
principles in the form of guidelines where the court has to check such principles before admitting
the confession of the accused, The following principles mentioned by the Supreme Court are:

Extrajudicial confessions are generally a very weak kind of evidence by itself and the court
must examine such statements efficiently.
Extrajudicial confession should be made by the person’s own will and such statements must
be true.
The evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession instantly increases when it is supported by
other such evidence.
The statements of the confessor must prove his guilt like any other fact in issue is proven in
the judicial proceedings.

Voluntary and Non-voluntary confession

The confession of an accused may be classified into Voluntary and non-voluntary confession. A
confession to the police officer is the confession made by the accused while in the custody of a
police officer and never relevant and can never be proved under Section 25 and 26. Now as for the

4/5
extra-judicial confession and confession made by the accused to some magistrate to whom he has
been sent by the police for the purpose during the investigation, they are admissible only when they
are made voluntarily.

If the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat
or promise having reference to the change against the accused person proceeding from a person in
authority and sufficient in opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds, which would
appear to him reasonable for supporting that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid
any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him, it will not be relevant and it
cannot be proved against the person making the statement.

Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act – confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when
irrelevant in criminal proceeding- A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a
criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by
any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the 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 reasonable, for supporting that by making it he would
gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him.

Confession by co-accused
The Supreme Court in the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana, 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.

Conclusion
The confession has played a vital role in criminal law. It is a part of admission provisions in the
evidence act. If confession is true and admissible in court, then it is considered satisfactory
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Section 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act as elaborated in
this paper covers most of the aspects of the confession. The legal provisions regarding confession
protect the accused from mistreatment and the constitutional right under Article 20(3) is also
upheld. If threat or inducement is completely removed, then such confession becomes admissible.
If a confession is made in police custody then it is not taken into consideration, therefore this
prevents the accused from police torture. Many provisions in both the evidence act and criminal
procedure code uphold the rights of the accused.

Attention all law students!

5/5