Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Of
Confessions
(Sections 24-30)
Introduction
The substantive law relating to Confessions is contained in sections
24-30 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the adjective law is contained in
Sections 164,281 and 463 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Sections 2426 lay down when confessions are not relevant i.e., provable. While sections 2729 are limitations to their operation.
Confessions are received in evidence in criminal cases upon the same
principle on which admissions are received in civil cases, namely,
The presumption that a person will not make an untrue statement against
his own interest.
A man of sound mind and full age, who makes a statement in ordinary
simple language and has not been victim of malpractices, threat or
inducement in making such statement, must be bound by the language of
statement and by its ordinary plain meaning and the act spoken of must
be given its legal consequence.
Definition
The term confession is nowhere defined in the Evidence Act. All the
provisions relating to confessions occur in the heading admission. This shows
the legislative intent of not distinguishing between and admission and
confession, so far at least definition is concerned. The definition of
admission as given in section 17 becomes applicable to confession also.
Section 17 defines admission as a statement oral or documentary,
which suggest any inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact. If such a
statement is made by a party to civil proceeding it will be called an admission
and if it is made by a party charged with a rime it will be called a confession.
Thus, in terms of the act, a confession s a statement made by a person charged
with a crime suggesting an inference as to any facts in issue or as o relevant
1
facts. The inference that the statement should suggest should be that he is gilty
of crime.
According to Stephens Digest of the Law of Evidence A confession is an
admission made at any time by a person charged with crime stating or
suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.
However in Pakala Narayan Swami vs. Emperor1the Privy Council did
not accept the definition for the purposes of Indian Evidence Act and observed
that a confession must either admit in the 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 itself a
confession, for example, an admission that the accused is the owner of and was
in recent possession of a knife or revolver which caused death with no
explanation of any other mans possession. The definition is not contained in
Evidence Act 1872, and in that act it would not be consistent with the natural
use of language to construe confession as a statement by an accused suggesting
the inference that he committed crime
Conditions For relevancy of Confession
The following conditions must be satisfied for relevancy of a confession:
It must not be caused by inducement, threat or promise (Section 24)
It must not be made to a police officer (Section 25)
It must be made I immediate presence of a Magistrate when the accused
is in the custody of police officer (Section 26)
It must be made after impression, caused by any inducement, etc., has
been fully removed (Section 27)
The Confession of an accused is relevant only against himself, subject to
Section 30.
In Thimma vs. State of Mysore2 the honble Supreme Court held that an
unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence and free from suspicion of
falsity is a valuable piece of evidence possession a high probative force.
Section 24
S24. 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 supposing that by making it he would gain
any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the
proceeding against him3.
PRINCIPLE: According to the section, a confession by an accused is irrelevant if it is
caused by
1. Inducement
2. Threat; or
3. Promise
The inducement, threat or promise should have (a) reference to the charge
against the accused; (b) proceeding from a person in authority, and (c)
sufficiently given the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by
making the confession he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of
temporal nature in reference to proceeding against him.
In Man Bhadur Gurung vs. State of Sikkim4 the magistrate herself had satisfied
that there was no policeman in courtroom or in any place where proceedings
could be seen or heard and questions and answers showed that the accused was
prepared to make confessional statement and two days time was given to the
accused for reflection and the statement was recorded by the Magistrate after
3 Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act
4 2002(4) Crimes 1136
3
satisfying herself that the statement has been made by the accused voluntarily
such confessional statement cannot be said to be result of any duress, coercion
or inducement by the police or any other person.
OBJECT: This section is mainly integrated to safeguard the interest of the accused, on the
ground of pubic policy and for proper administration of justice. The Supreme
Court in Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra 5observed that it is abhorrent
to our notions of justice and fair play, and is also dangerous, to allow a man to
be convicted on the strength of a confession unless it is made voluntarily and
unless he realizes that he says may be used against him.
The Apex Court in Shankaria vs. State of Rajisthan6 observed that it is well
settled that a confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious
proof of guilt. Therefore, when in capital case the prosecution demands a
conviction of the accused primarily on the basis of his confession recordedunder
Section 164 Cr.P.C. the court must apply a double test:
1. Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary?
2. If so, whether it was true and trustworthy?
Satisfaction of first evidence is sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence.
If the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement,
threat or promise, such as is mentioned in Section 24, Evidence Act, it must be
excluded and rejected bervi manu.In such a case, the question of proceeding
further to apply the second test does not arise. If the first test is satisfied, the
court must, before acting upon the confession, reach the finding that what is
stated in the therein is true and reliable. For judging the reliability of such a
confession or, for the matter, of any substantive piece of evidence, thereis no
rigid cannon of universal application. Even so, one broad method which may be
useful in most cases for evaluation of a confession may be indicated. The court
should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of
evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of each
case.
Further this section place responsibility on the court. Under the latter part of
the section, the court has to form an opinion that the inducement, threat, or
promise by the person in authority is sufficient to give the accused person
grounds, which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that, by making
it, he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature. The
5 AIR 1956 SC 217
6 AIR 1978 SC 1248
4
responsibility of the court would be great because the court must relegate itself
to the position of the accused and see whether the inducement, threat or promise
given to the accused would appear reasonable to make the accused feel that he
would gain an advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature with reference to
the charge against him7. Thus it can be seen that this section through its wording
has given the fullest discretion to the court to reject he alleged confession if it
entertains a suspicion.
ESSENTIALS OF A CONFESSION: Admissions and confessions are exception to the hearsay rule; they are placed in
the category of relevant evidence in Sections 17-30 presumably on the ground
that, being declarations against the interest of the person making them, they are
probably true. Their probable value does not depend upon their communication
to another, though, just like any other piece of evidence, they can be admitted in
evidence only on proof that can be offered by witness who heard the admission
or the confession, as the case may be. Before a confession is relied upon, it must
be clear and unequivocal, whether it is judicial or extra-judicial confession.
Before a confession can be accepted in evidence, it must be established
by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused. Even if so
much is established, prudence and justice demands that such evidence cannot be
sole ground of conviction. It may used only as a corroborative piece of
evidence8.
Further confession must either admit in terms of offence, or at any rate
substantially all the acts, which constitute the offence. An admission of gravely
incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not itself a
confession. Also an admission of a fact, however incriminating, but not by itself
establishing the guilt of the maker of such admission, doesnot amount to a
confession within the meaning of Sections24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. A
statement made under section 164 Cr.P.C , which doesnot amount to a
confession, can be used against the maker as an admission with in purview of
Ss. 18-21. Further any confessional statement not relating to the alleged crime,
which is not the subject matter of the indictment, cannot be relevant under this
section and cannot be relied upon.
MADE BY AN ACCUSED: 7 Satbir Singh vs. State of Punjab/ AIR 1977 SC 1294
8 Saboo vs. State of UP/ AIR 1966 SC 40
5
Section 25
S.25 Confession to police officer not to be proved- No confession made
to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
PRINCIPLE:Under this section a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in
evidence except in so far as proved by section 27. The principle upon which the
rejection of confession made by accused to a police officer, or while in custody
of such officer, is founded, is that a confession thus made or obtained is
untrustworthy. The broad ground for not admitting confessions made to a police
officer is to avoid the danger of admitting a false confession.
In Queen Empress vs. Babulal11 it was observed that rules contained in
sections 25, 26, and 27 of the evidence act were not originally treated in British
India as, strictly speaking, rules of evidence, but rather as rules governing the
action of police officers, and as matters of criminal procedure. The Legislature
had in view malpractices of police officials in extorting confessions from
accused persons in order to gain credit by securing convictions, and those
malpractices went to the length of positive torture, the legislature, in laying
down such rules, regarded the evidence of police officers as untrustworthy, and
the object of the rule was to put a stop to the extortion of confession, by taking
away from the police officers the advantage of proving such extorted confession
during the trial of accused person.
SCOPE: The provision does not exclude all statements made to the police but only
confessions made by the accused. A statement even if it goes against the
accused is admissible if it does not amount to a confession. It is immaterial
whether the police officer to whom the confession is made is the officer
investigating the case or not. The fact that he is police officer is sufficient to
invalidate the confession; to whatever crime it may refer.
11 (1884) 6 All 509
7
OBJECT: In State of Gujrat vs. Anirudh Singh12the apex court laid down the object
of section 25 and stated that it is to ensure that the person accused of the offence
would not be induced by threat, coercion or force to make a confessional
statement and the officers would also make every effort to collect the evidence
of the commission of every crime de hors the confession to be extracted from
the accused while they are in custody of police.
POLICE OFFICER: The term should not be read in strict technical sense but according to its more
compressive and popular meaning. It applies to every police officer and is not
restricted to officers in regular police force.
In Rajaram vs. State of Bihar13 the Supreme Court observed that: The
test for determining whether a person is a police officer for the purpose of
section 25 of the Evidence Act would be whether the powers of a police officer
which are conferred on him or which are exercisable by him because he is
deemed to be officer in charge of a police station, establish a direct or
substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by section 25, that is,
recording of a confession. In other words, the test would be whether the powers
are such as would tend to facilitate the obtaining by him of a confession from a
suspect or a delinquent. If they do, then it is unnecessary to consider the
dominant purpose for which he is appointed or question as to what the other
powers he enjoys. These questions may perhaps be relevant for consideration
where the powers of a police officer confer upon him are of very limited
character and are not by themselves sufficient to facilitate the obtaining by him
of a confession.
Who are police officers: - The following officers are held as police officers
within the meaning of Section 25:
Excise Officer (Under Bihar and Orissa Act)
A Special Officer of the Commercial tax Department
An Officer appointed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act.
Security officer of H.E.C.
Officers of J.K. Rifels
Officers under Orissa Home Guard Act
12 AIR 1997 SC 2780
13 AIR 1964 SC 828
8
Section 26
S. 26 Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be
proved against him- No confession made by any person whilst he is in the
custody of a police officer, unless it is made in immediate presence of a
Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
PRINCIPLE: This section is a further extension of the principle laid down in section
25. The object is to prevent the abuse of the powers by the police. Under section
26 no confession made by a person in custody to nay person other than police
officer, shall be admissible unless made in immediate presence of a Magistrate.
The reason is that a person in custody of police is presumed to be under their
influence and it provides opportunities for offering inducement or extorting
confessions. The presence of the Magistrate secures the free and voluntary
nature of the confession and the confessing person has the opportunity of
making a statement uncontrolled by fear of police.
14 AIR 1966 SC 119
9
IMMIDIATE PRESENCE OF MAGISTRATE:A confession is admissible, if made to a magistrate or to a person other than
Police Officer but in the immediate presence of Magistrate, but it will be
inadmissible if it is made to a police officer eve in presence of a Magistrate. The
presence of a Magistrate rules out the possibility of torture thereby making the
confession free, voluntary and reliable. Further immediate presence of
Magistrate means his presence in the same room where the confession is being
recorded. His presence in the adjoining room cannot afford the same degree of
protection against torture17.
Further confession to a private person in presence of a police officer is also
barred by section 26. Also a statement made to the police and heard by a private
person cannot be regarded as an extra- judicial confession as this section hits it.
Section 27
S.27 How much of information received from accused may be
proved- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in
17 Singh Avtar, Principles of the Law of Evidence, Central Law
Publications, 20th Edition
11
fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based on the
view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of the information
given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that information is true and
accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. Normally this
section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from
some place of concealment some object, such as, a dead body, a weapon, or
ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is
accused.
In M.G. Thakore vs. State of Gujrat19the apex court observed that whether
a person is in custody or outside, a confession made by him to a police officer or
the making of which is procured by inducement, threat or promise, having
reference to the charge against him and proceeding from person in authority, is
not provable against him in any proceeding in which he is discharged with the
commission of an offence. Where in pursuance of the statement made by
accused on the specific question by the investigating officer stolen property was
discovered, the said statement of the accused could not be said to be volunteered
and was inadmissible in evidence.
In S.G. Niak vs. State of Maharashtra20 the accused allegedly stated that
the injuries sustained by him were caused due to dog bite and the evidence
showed that only one of those injuries was attribute to dog bite, still the
statement of the accused could not be used in evidence against him.
In Vikrim Singh vs. State of Punjab.21it was observed by the apex court
that the words accused of any offence under Section 27 would not operate
only after formal arrest under Section 46(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused persons
were in police custody at the time of recoveries on the basis of their disclosure
statements. Such recoveries could not be held to be not admissible under
Section 27.
DOCTRINE OF CONFIRMATION: In State of Karnatka vs. David Razario22 the Honble Supreme Court observed
that the basic idea embedded in this section is the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that, if any fact is
discovered as a search made on strength of any information obtained from
prisoner, such discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the
19
20
21
22
Section 28
S.28 Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement,
threat or promise relevant- If such a confession as s referred in section 24 is
made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise
has, in the opinion of the court, been fully removed it as relevant.
26 AIR 1960 SC
15
Section 29
S.29 Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because
of promise of secrecy, etc.- If such a confession is otherwise relevant it does
not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy,
or in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused person for the
purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in
answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever have been the
form of those questions, or because he was not bound to make such confession,
and that evidence of it might be given against him.
PRINCIPLE: Under this section, if confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become
irrelevant merely because of certain circumstances referred to in the section.
16
Under Section 24, if the confession were caused by any inducement, threat or
promise relating to the charge and proceeding from a person in authority, it
would not be relevant. So if there were no such threat, promise or inducement, it
would become relevant. Under Section 25, confession to a police officer is not
admissible. If it not made to a police officer but is made to any other person, it
would become relevant. Under section 26, though confession is made while in
police custody, if it is made in the immediate presence of the Magistrate, it
would be relevant. Under this section a relevant confession does not become
irrelevant merely because it was made under:
1. A promise of secrecy, or
2. In consequence of a deception or artifice practiced on the accused, or
3. When he was drunk, or
4. Because it was elicited in answer to a question, or
5. Because no warning was given that he was not bound to say anything and
that whatever he might say would be used as evidence against him27.
IF SUCH CONFESSION IS OTHERWISE RELEVANT: These words indicate that before the provision of this section can be
invoked, it mist appear that the confession in question is admissible under the
preceding sections of the Act. If for any of the reasons mentioned in Ss. 24, 26
and 28, the confession is inadmissible, then there is no question of applying the
provisions of Section 29. Section 29, therefore, assumes that there is no bar to
the admissibility of the confession in question arising from any of the said
earlier provisions and it then proceeds to invalidate or negative other possible
objections or bars that may be raised against its admissibility.
SECTION 29 AND SECTION 164 OF Cr.P.C.: The question has repeatedly arisen whether in a case where the provisions in
Section 164 Cr.P.C, were not complied with in recording a confession of an
accused, the confession would still not become irrelevant u/s 29, if such
confession was otherwise relevant.
Section 164 of Cr.P.C provides the formalities to be undergone by
Magistrates in recording confession. It says, among other things, the Magistrate
shall explain to the person making the confession that he is not bound to make
it. But this section says that a confession does not become irrelevant because the
accused was not warned that he is not bound to make it. The Bombay HC in
27Dhirajlal Ratanlal, The Law of Evidence, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur,
22nd Enlarged Edition,2006.
17
Emperor vs. Ramnath Mahabir28 held that the Cr.P.C is a special enactment
applying only to certain statements made in particular circumstances
contemplated by section 164. It cannot override the general provisions of this
section except where these circumstances bring the section into operation.
Section 30
S.30-Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it
and others jointly under trial for some offence- When more persons than one
are being tried jointly for same offence and a confession made by one of such
persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the court
may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well
as against the person who makes such confession.
OBJECT AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE: The object of this section is that where an accused person unreservedly
confesses his own guilt, and at the same time implicates the another person who
is jointly tried with him for the same offence, his confession may be taken into
consideration against such other person as well as against himself, because the
admission of his own guilt operates as a sort of sanction, which, to some extent,
takes place of the sanction of an oath and so affords some guarantee that the
whole statement is a true one29.
The section says nothing, not r it would have been desirable to say anything
about the evidentiary value of the confession of a co-accused. All that the
section says and was necessary to say is that such confession may be taken into
consideration against all of them, leaving the weight of the confession to the
discretion of the court. Their Lordships of the Privy Council, in Bhuboni Sahu
vs. The King30 observed that the confession may be considered by the court, but
section does not say that the confession is to amount to proof; clearly there must
be other evidence. The confession is only one element in the consideration of all
the facts proved in the case, it can be put into the scale and weighed with the
other evidence.
In Kashmira Singh vs. State of M.P.31, the Honble SC observed that the proper
way to approach a case of this kind is, first marshal the evidence against the
28 (1925) 28 Bom LR 111
29 Justice Nandi A.K., Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Kamal Law house, 6th
Edition, 2010
30 AIR 1949 PC 1257
31 AIR 1952 SC 159
18
and it amounts to a confession in the sense that it implicates the maker; it is not
likely that the maker would implicate himself untruly.So section 30 provides
that such a confession may be taken into consideration even against the coaccused who is being tried along with the maker of the confession.
TRIED JOINTLY: There must be joint trial of the accused. The joint trial should be legal. In
form any cause the accused who made the confession cannot be legally tried
with the accused against which the confession is to be used, the court should not
attach any value to the confession.
truth. The Supreme Court in Shankaria vs. State of Rajisthan38 has explained the
evidentiary value of a confession. It was observed that it is well settled that a
confession, if voluntary and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt.
Therefore, when in a capital case the prosecution demands conviction of the
accused primarily on the ground of his confession recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C, the court must apply a double test
i. Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary, and
ii. If so, it is true and trustworthy.
Satisfaction of the first test is sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence.
Normally, if a statement made by an accused person is found to be voluntary
and it amounts to a confession in the sense that it implicates the maker; it is not
likely that the maker would implicate himself untruly. So section 30 provides
that such a confession may be taken into consideration even against the coaccused who is being tried along with the maker of the confession.
In State vs. Nalini39 the court negative the contention that a confessional
statement is not a substantive piece of evidence. A confession under Section 15
of the TADA Act, 1987, is not merely of corroborative nature to be used I
support of other evidence, it is of substantive nature itself.
distinction too. The act lays down different rule as to their relevancy. The points
of difference are as follows:
Firstly, the provisions relating to confessions occur under the heading
admissions, it follows that the word admission is more
comprehensive and includes confessions too. A confession is only a
species of admission. Thus every confession is an admission but every
admission is not a confession
Secondly, though the definition of admission given under section 17
should equally apply to confessions also because the term confession is
nowhere defined in the Act.
Thirdly, a confession is the admission of guilt in reference to a crime and,
therefore, invariably runs against the interest of the accused. The term
admission, on the other hand, refers to every statement whether it runs
against or in favour of the party making it, and that is why S. 2 permits a
person, in certain exceptional cases, to prove his own statements.
Fourthly, the conditions of relevancy are different. An admission made to
any person whatsoever is relevant whether he be a policeman or a person
in authority or whether it was the result of an inducement or a promise.
But in the case of a confession the law steadfastly adheres to the principle
that the confession must be free and voluntary.
Fifthly, an admission made under a promise of secrecy is not relevant, but
by virtue of provisions Section 29 a confession is provable even if it was
obtained under a promise of secrecy.
Sixthly, by virtue of the provision in S.30 the confession of an accused
person is relevant against all co-accused who are being tried with him for
the same offence. In the case of admissions, statements of co-plaintiff or
those of a co-defendant ae no evidence against the others.
Seventhly, a confession always proceeds from a person who has
committed an offence or is accused of any crime, but in reference to
admissions sections 18, 19 and 20 regard the statements of certain
persons, who are not parties to the case, as admissions against the parties
Lastly, the effect of an admission is that it doesnot constitute a conclusive
proof of the fact admitted, though it may operate as an estoppel against
the party making the admission. As to the value of a confession there is
no provision in Evidence Act, but the courts have always regarded
confession as a satisfactory proof of the guilt of the accused.
23
In State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sidhu @ Afsal Guru 40, the apex court
distinguished between admission and confession and observed that,
Confessions which is a terminology used in criminal law is a species of
'admissions' as defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. An admission
is a statement, oral or documentary, Which enables the court to draw an
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is trite to say that
every confession must necessarily be an admission, but, every admission does
not necessarily amount to a confession . While Sections 17 to 23 deal with
admissions, the law as to confessions is embodied in Sections 24 to 30 of the
Evidence Act.
Bibliography
1. Dhirajlal Ratanlal, The Law of Evidence, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur,
22nd Enlarged Edition, 2006
2. Singh Avtar, Principles of the Law of Evidence, Central Law Publications,
20th Edition
40 AIR 2005 SC 3820
24
25