CONFESSIO FACTA IN JUDICIO OMNI PROBATIONE MAJOR EST

Final draft submitted in the partial fulfilment of the course titled-

EVIDENCE LAW

Submitted To:
Dr. Meeta Mohini

Submitted By:
Vishwan Upadhyay
Roll No.: 1864
BBA L.L.B (Hons.)

FEBRUARY, 2019

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001

 DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE

I hereby declare that the work reported in the B.B.A., LL.B (Hons.) Project Report entitled
“Confessio facta in judico omni probatione major est” submitted at Chanakya National Law
University is an authentic record of my work carried out under the supervision of Dr. Meeta
Mohini.
I have not submitted this work elsewhere for any other degree or diploma. I am fully responsible
for the contents of my Project Report.

SIGNATURE OF CANDIDATE
NAME OF CANDIDATE: VISHWAN UPADHYAY
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A project is a joint endeavour which is to be accomplished with utmost compassion, diligence and
with support of all. Gratitude is a noble response of one’s soul to kindness or help generously
rendered by another and its acknowledgement is the duty. I am overwhelmed in all humbleness
and gratefulness to acknowledge from the bottom of my heart to all those who have helped me to
put these ideas, well above the level of simplicity and into something concrete effectively and
moreover on time.

I would like to thank my faculty Dr. Meeta Mohini whose guidance helped me a lot with structuring
my project. I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me
immensely with materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have completed it
in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands that helped me
out at every stage of my project.

THANK YOU,

NAME: Vishwan Upadhyay

COURSE: B.B.A., LL.B. (Hons.)
ROLL NO: 1864
SEMESTER: 4TH
 INDEX

1. INTRODUCTION

2. CONFESSION

3. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONFESSION AND ADMISSSION

4. FORMS OF CONFESSION

a. JUDICIAL

b. EXTRA-JUDICIAL

c. DIFFERRENCE BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND EXTRA-JUDICIAL

d. VOLUNTARILY AND NON-VOLUNTARILY CONFESSION

5. SECTION 24 OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

6. EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION

7. CONCLUSION

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:
The main aim of the researcher is to present a detailed study on the topic- ‘Confessio Facta in
Judicio Probatione Major Est’. The topic is carefully researched upon. The ingredients and
contents of the topic have been studied and the same is presented by the researcher.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
Doctrinal method of research were relied upon for the completion of this project. Primary
method was adopted for the process of research undertaken on this topic. The method of writing
this project is mostly analytical nature.

SOURCES OF DATA:
Few primary and secondary works sources were used for the completion of this rough draft. Few
literary works like books and articles were referred too.
The researcher has also relied on internet aid till a certain extent.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Limited period of time was the biggest limitation of the study. Territorial and monetary
limitations were also present. The researcher had a limited period of time to complete the
analytical analysis of the given topic.
 INTRODUCTION

‘Evidence’ is a word derived from the Latin word ‘evidera’ which means to discover clearly, to
ascertain or to prove. According to Blackstone, evidence “signifies that which demonstrates,
makes clear or ascertains the truth of the facts or points in issue either in one side or the other”1.
Taylor describes evidence as “all means which tend to prove or disprove any matter, fact, the truth
of which is submitted to judicial investigation”.2

Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines ‘Evidence’ as:

"Evidence" – "Evidence" means and includes

(1) All statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation
to matters of fact under inquiry;
Such statements are called oral evidence;

(2) All document including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court,
Such statements are called documentary evidence;

A case for the decision before the Court has disputed facts. The plaintiff or the
prosecutor/complainant alleges the existence of some facts in his favor and the opposite party
alleges non-existence of some facts. The facts alleged before the court maybe proved or disproved.

Confessio facta in judicio omni probatione major est basically translates to a confession made in
court is of greater effect than proof.

1
Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence, pg. 1, (22 ed., 2018).
2
Taylor, Evidence, Section 1
 CONFESSION EXPLAINED

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 Lord Atkin it was observed that:

“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 the Supreme Court approved the Privy
Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case over two scores.
o 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.

 However in the case Nishi Kant Jha v State of Bihar 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 part.
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONFESSION AND ADMISSION

Section 17 to 31 deals with admission generally and include Section 24 to 30 which deal with
confession as distinguished from admission.

Confession Admission
1. Confession is a statement made by an 1. Admission usually relates to civil transaction
accused person which is sought to be and comprises all statements amounting to
proved against him in criminal admission defined under section 17 and made
proceeding to establish the commission by person mentioned under section 18, 19 and
of an offence by him. 20.
2. Confession if deliberately and
2. Admissions are not conclusive as to the
voluntarily made may be accepted as
matters admitted it may operate as an estoppel.
conclusive of the matters confessed.
3. Admissions may be used on behalf of the
3. Confessions always go against the
person making it under the exception of section
person making it
21 of evidence act.
4.Confessions made by one or two or
more accused jointly tried for the same 4. Admission by one of the several defendants
offence can be taken into consideration in suit is no evidence against other defendants.
against the co-accused (section 30)
5. admission is statement oral or written which
5. confession is statement written or oral
gives inference about the liability of person
which is direct admission of suit.
making admission.

The acid test which distinguishes a confession from an admission is that where conviction can be
based on the statement alone, it is confession and where some supplementary evidence is needed
to authorize a conviction, then it is an admission as stated in Ram Singh v. State Another test is
that if the prosecution relies on the statement as being true it is confession and if the statement is
relied on because it is false it is admission. In criminal cases a statement by accused, not amounting
to confession but giving rise to inference that the accused might have committed the crime is his
admission.
 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. 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- 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- 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

Judicial confession Extra-judicial confession

1. Extra-judicial confession are those which are
1. Judicial confessions are those which are made to any person other than those authorized by
made to a judicial magistrate under section 164 law to take confession. It may be made to any
of Cr.P.C. or before the court during committal person or to police during investigation of an
proceeding or during trial. offence.
2. To prove judicial confession the person to 2. Extra-judicial confession are proved by calling
whom judicial confession is made need not be the person as witness before whom the extra-
called as witness. judicial confession is made.
3. Judicial confession can be relied as proof of
3. Extra-judicial confession alone cannot be relied
guilt against the accused person if it appears to
it needs support of other supporting evidence.
the court to be voluntary and true.
4. A conviction may be based on judicial 4. It is unsafe to base conviction on extra-judicial
confession. confession.

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 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 the Evidence Act lays down the rule
for the exclusion of the confession which are made non-voluntarily.
 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.

If a confession comes within the four corners of Section 24 is irrelevant and cannot be used against
the maker.

Ingredients of Section 24
To attract the prohibition enacted in Section 24 the following facts must be established:
• That the statement in question is a confession,
• That such confession has been made by the accused,
• That it has been made to a person in authority,
• That the confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement, threat or promise, proceeding
from a person in authority,
• Such inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused, and
• The inducement, threat or promise must in the opinion of the court be sufficient to give the
accused ground, 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 proceedings against
him.

1. Confession made by inducement, threat or promise- a confession should be free and voluntary.
“If it proceeds from remorse and a desire to make reparation for the crime, it is admissible. If it
flows from hope or fear, excited by a person in authority, it is inadmissible.” The term inducement
involves a threat of prosecution if the guilt is not confessed and a promise of forgiveness if it is so
done. It is very difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to what constitutes inducement. It is
for the judge to decide in every case. An inducement may be express or implied, it need not be
made to the accused directly from the person in authority. Before a confession can be received as
such, it must be shown that it was freely and voluntarily made. This means that the confession
must not be obtained by any sort of threat or violence, not by any promise either direct or indirect,
expressed or implied, however slight the hope or fear produced thereby, not by the exertion of an
influence. The ground on which confessions made by the accused under promises of favour or
threats of injury are excluded from evidence is not because any wrong is done to the accused in
suing than but because he may be induced by pressure of hope or fear to confess the guilt without
regard to their truth in order to obtain relief or avoid the threatened danger. Thus it is clear that if
threat or promise from persons in authority is used in getting a confession it will not be taken into
evidence. Every threat or inducement may not be sufficient to induce the accused to confess a
guilt. The proper question before excluding a confession is whether the inducement held out to the
prisoner was calculated to make his confession untrue one. The real enquiry is whether there had
been any threat of such a nature that from fear of it the prisoner was likely to have told an untruth.
If so, the confession should not be admitted.

In case of an ordinary confession there is no initial burden on the prosecution to prove that the
confession sought to be proved is not obtained by inducement, threat, etc. It is the right of the
accused to have the confession excluded and equally the duty of the court to exclude it even suo
moto. It is idle to expect that an accused should produce definite proof about beating or pressure.
But he must point out some evidence or circumstances on which a well-sounded conjecture at
least, that there was beating or pressure may reasonably be based.

2. Inducement must have reference to the charge- the inducement must have reference to the charge
against the accused person that is the charge of offence in the criminal courts and inferencing the
mind of the accused with respect to the escape from the charge. The inducement must have
reference to escape from the charge. Thus, it is necessary for the confession to be excluded from
evidence that the accused should labour under influence that in reference to the charge in question
his position would be better or worse according as he confesses or not. Inducements in reference
to other offences or matters or offences committed by others will not affect the validity of the
confession thus, where a person charged with murder, was made to confess to a Panchayat which
threatened his removal from the caste for life, the confession was held to be relevant, for the threat
had nothing to do with the charge.

The inducement need not be necessarily expressed. It may be implied from the conduct of the
person in authority, from the declaration of the prisoner or the circumstances of the case. Similarly
it need not be made to the prisoner directly; it is sufficient to have come to his knowledge provided
it appears to have induced to confession.

3. Threat, inducement and promise from a person in authority- the threat, inducement and promise
on account of which the accused admits the guilt must come from a person who has got some
authority over the matter. To be clear the person giving different promises, threatening the accused
or inducing him to make the confession must be a person in authority as stated in the Pyare Lal v.
State of Rajasthan . If a friend of the accused induces him to make a confession or a relation if he
makes him a promise that if he confesses he will get him released or even if he threatens him and
the accused on that account admits his guilt this statement will not be excluded by Section 24 as
the threat, inducement or promise do not emanate from a person in authority.

If the accused makes the confession thinking that by doing so the authorities would soften the
attitude towards him the confession cannot be said to be non-voluntary.

The term “person in authority” within the meaning of Section 24 was held to be one who has
authority to interfere in the matter charge against the accused. If this definition is to be accepted
that term “ a person in authority” would mean only the police who are in charge of the investigation
and the magistrate who is to try the case. This view appears to be too restrictive. It appears that a
person in authority within the meaning of Section 24 should be one who by virtue of his position
wields some kind of influence over the accused.

The question as to whether a person to whom a confession has been made is a person in authority
would naturally depend on the circumstances of each case having regard to the status of the accused
in relation to the person before whom the confession is made. A house surgeon is a person in
authority in relation to nurse of the same hospital.
4. Sufficiency of the inducement, threat or promise- before a confession is excluded, inducement,
threat or promise would in the opinion of the court be sufficient to give the accused person ground
which would appear to the accused reasonable for supposing that by making the confession he
would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of the nature contemplated in the section. Consequently
the mentality of the accused has to be judged and not the person in authority. That being the case,
not only the actual words, but words followed by acts or conduct on the part of the person in
authority, which may be taken by the accused person as amounting to an inducement, threat or
promise, will have to be taken into account. A perfectly innocent expression, coupled with acts or
conduct on the part of the person in authority together with the surrounding circumstances may
amount to inducement, threat or promise. It does not turn upon as to what may have been the
precise words used but in each case whatever the words used may be it is for the judge to consider
whether the words used were such as to convey to the mind of the person addressed an intimation
that it will be better for him to confess that he committed the crime or worse for him if he does
not. The expression, “whatever you say will be used as evidence against you” will not exclude a
confession. On the other hand “you better pay the money than go to jail”, “if you tell me where
my goods are I will be favourable to you”, “I will get you released if you tell me the truth”, have
been held to be sufficient to give the accused grounds for supposing that by making the confession
he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil.

It must be borne in the mind that the advantage gained or the evil avoided must be of temporal
nature therefore any inducement having reference to a future state of reward or punishment does
not affect the admissibility of confession. A confession will not be excluded which has been
obtained by the accused by moral or religious exhortation. The expression “you had better as good
boys tell the truth”, “kneel down and tell me truth in the presence of the Almighty”, do not give
out any temporal gain and so the confession derived on these confessions are not excluded by
Section 24. Confession obtained on the allegation by the panches that if the accused does not
confess he shall be excommunicated will not exclude the confession. It should be borne in the
mind that the gain or evil must be in reference to the proceeding against him.
 Evidentiary value of confession

Value of judicial confession- a case where there is no proof of corpus delicti must be distinguished
from another where that is proved. In the absence of the corpus delicti a confession alone may not
suffice to justify conviction.

A confessional statement made by the accused before a magistrate is a 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.
If it is found that the confession was made and was free, voluntary and genuine there would remain
nothing to be done by the prosecution to secure conviction. If the court finds that it is true that the
accused committed the crime it means that the accused is guilty and the court has to do nothing
but to record conviction and sentence him. No question of corroboration arises in this case.
Normally speaking it would not be quite safe as a matter of prudence if not of law to base a
conviction for murder on the confession of the alleged murder by itself and without more. It would
be extremely unsafe to do so when the confession is open to a good deal of criticism and has been
taken in the jail without adequate reason and when the story of murder as given in the confession
is somewhat hard to believe. This observation was made by the Supreme Court and therefore it
cannot be said to be a good law in the case of judicial 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 which 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.
The evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. The extra-judicial
confession must be received with great case and caution. It can be relied upon only when it is clear,
consistent and convincing. The court has to decide whether the person before whom the admission
is said to have been made are trustworthy witnesses. The extra-judicial confession is open to the
danger of mistake due to the misapprehension of the witness before whom the confession was
made to the misuse of the words and the failure of the party to express his own meaning. This is
also open to another sort of danger. There being no record and there being no sanction behind it is
very easy for the prosecution to catch hold of any witness who may come and depose that the
accused admitted his guilt in his presence on some particular time. Due to those reasons it is very
dangerous for the courts to base conviction on the sole basis of extra-judicial confession. Usually
and as a matter of caution courts require some material corroboration to an extra-judicial
confession statement corroboration which connects the accused person with the crime in question.

Extra-judicial confessions have to receive with great caution and care and when the foundation of
the conviction is the confession alleged to have been made by the accused there are three things
which the prosecution must establish. First, that a confession was made, secondly, that evidence
of it can be given that is to say that it was voluntary and thirdly that it is true. Such a confession
must be proved by an independent or satisfactory evidence.

In State of Karnataka v. A.B.Nag Raj there was 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
accused during detention in forest office. No mention of said confession in report given to police
nor any witness present there mentioning about the same confession. This extra-judicial confession
cannot be relied on.
Before relying on extra-judicial confession, it must be considered whether the confession was
really made. It should also be considered as to why the accused reposed confidence in the witnesses
stating about the confession. It was alleged that the accused made confession to a witness who was
the widow of one of the conspirators and was helping her husband in making spears and other
weapons. It was held that the confession was not reliable.
Value of retracted confession- A retracted confession is a statement made by an accused person
before the trial begins by which he admits to have committed the offence but which he repudiates
at the trial. After the commission of a serious offence some police officer makes investigation into
the matter, examines witnesses and the accused. If in his opinion the accused is proved to have
committed the offence, he submits a report to a magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter. The
court takes evidence and examines the accused. If during the investigation, the accused on being
examined by the police officer is willing to admit the guilt the police officer sends the accused to
some magistrate for recording his statement. The magistrate after being satisfied that the accused
admits in his statement to have committed the offence this recorded statement by the magistrate
may be proved at the trial. When the trial begins the accused on being asked as to whether he
committed the crime he may say that he did not commit the crime. The question may again be put
to him as to whether he made statement before the magistrate during the investigation confessing
the guilt. He may deny to have made the statement at all or he may say that he made that statement
due to undue influence of the police. In this case the confession made by the accused to the
magistrate before the trial begins is called retracted confession.

It is unsafe to base the conviction on a retracted confession unless it is corroborated by trustworthy

evidence. There is no definite law that a retracted confession cannot be the basis of the conviction
but it has been laid down as a rule of practice and prudence not to rely on retracted confession
unless corroborated. Courts have convicted persons on retracted confession when they have been
of the opinion that the confession when it was made was voluntary or consistent and true but the
real rule of law about the retracted confession is “where the retracted confession is the sole
evidence it can be of little value specially when made during the competition for a pardon which
sometimes occurs where a number of persons are suspected of an offence,”. It very often happens
that a number of persons are accused of murder or dacoity or of any other offence. The person in
charge of the investigation falling on direct and independent evidence chooses some of the accused
to admit the guilt on the promise of making him a witness in the case. Instances are not rare when
a young man is made to admit some guilt due to pressure or fear.

It is really very strange for an accused to confess before the investigation authority that he has
committed the murder. That statement if made without any pressure, fear or hope must be either
due to the remorse or godly fear or it is so because the accused is as truthful as Harish Chandra
and Yudhisthir. If this is so and if the statement was made because the winess was remorseful or
because he made the confession due to fear of god or because he was truthful there is no reason as
to why he resiles from that statement when he is put to trial. Due to this suspicion a retracted
confession can always be suspected to have been extracted by pressure, undue influence,
inducement or threat by some person in authority.

Proof of judicial confession- Under section 80 of Evidence Act a confession recorded by the
magistrate according to law shall be presumed to be genuine. It is enough if the recorded judicial
confession is filed before the court. It is not necessary to examine the magistrate who recorded it
to prove the confession. But the identity of the accused has to be proved.

Proof of extra-judicial confession- extra-judicial confession may be in writing or oral. In the case
of a written confession the writing itself will be the best evidence but if it is not available or is lost
the person before whom the confession was made be produced to depose that the accused made
the statement before him. When the confession has not been recorded, person or persons before
whom the accused made the statement should be produced before the court and they should prove
the statement made by the accused.

Statements During Investigation And Before Accusation

A confessional statement made by a person to the police even before he is accused of any offence
is equally irrelevant. The section clearly says that such a statement cannot be proved against any
person accused of any offence. This means that even if the accusation is subsequent to the
statement, the statement cannot be proved.

Confessional FIR
Only that part of a confessional First Information Report is admissible which does not amount to
a confession or which comes under the scope of section 27. The non-confessional part of the FIR
can be used as evidence against the accused as showing his conduct under section 8.
Statement Not Amounting To Confession
A statement which does not amount to confession is not hit by the bar of section. A statement in
the course of investigation was that the design was carried out according to the plan. The statement
did not refer to the persons who were involved in the murder, nor did the maker of the statement
refer to himself. This was held to be not a confessional statement. Hence, not hit by section 25 .
The statement of inspector(crimes) that the accused accepted before him that he got the counterfeit
currency notes from a stranger but the accused denying to have so stated, was not admissible in
evidence.

Use Of Confessional Statement By Accused

Though the statements to police made by the confessing accused cannot be used in evidence
against him, he can himself rely on those statements in his defence. The statement of the accused
in FIR that he killed his wife giving her a fatal blow when some tangible proof of her indiscretion
was available was not usable against him to establish his guilt. But once his guilt was established
through other evidence, he was permitted to rely upon his statement so as to show that he was
acting under grave and sudden provocation. There is nothing in Evidence Act which precludes an
accused person from relying upon his own confessional statements for his own purposes.

Special Legislation
A special legislation may change the system of excluding police confessions. For example, under
the Territorists and Disruptive Activities(prevention) Act, 1987, (S15) confessional statements
were not excluded from evidence on grounds that the persons making them were in police custody.
The court said in another case that section 15 was an important departure from the ordinary law
and must receive that interpretation which would achieve the object of that provision was that a
confession recorded under S.15 of TADA was a substantive piece of evidence and could be used
against a co-accused also.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Books:
a. Law of Evidence by Batuk Lal
2. Websites:
a. www.legalservicesindia.com
b. www.legaldictionary-maxims.com