Confession

Section 24 to 30 of Evidence Act, 1872 deals with confessions.

Confessions should be voluntary. There are four kinds of Confession a) judicial
confession, b) Extra-Judicial Confession, c) Retracted Confession, d) Confession by
co-accused.

The meaning of Confession:

The expression confession means a statement made by an accused admitting his
guilt. It is an admission as to the commission of an offence. If a person accused of
an offence makes a statement against himself, it is called confession or
confessional statement. Confessions are the special form of admissions. Thus it is
popularly said that "All Confessions are admissions, but all Admissions are not
confessions."

Definition of Confession:
According to Sir James Stephen "An admission made at any time by a person
charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a
crime".
The term confession no where defined in the Evidence Act 1872, But the
definition of admission under section 17 of evidence Act becomes applicable to
confession also. Section 17 provides " A statement, oral or documentary which
suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact."

If a statement made by a party in the civil proceeding, it is called as admission

while if it is made by the party charged with the crime, in a criminal proceeding, it
is called as a confession. Thus, the confession is a statement made by the person
charged with a crime suggesting an inference as to any fact in issue or as to
relevant fact. The inference that the statement should suggest that he is guilty of
a crime.
Confession is an admission by the accused charged with an offence in the
criminal proceeding.
Example : If X is charged with the murder of Y, If X said that he has killed B, it is
a confession.

Kinds of Confession:
There are four kinds of Confession, are as follows:
1) Judicial confession,
2) Extra-Judicial Confession,
3) Retracted Confession,
4) Confession by co-accused,,

1) Judicial confession:
A Judicial Confession is that which is made before Magistrate or in a court due
course of judicial proceeding. Judicial Confession is relevant and is used as an
evidence against the maker provided it is recorded in accordance with provisions
of Section 164 of Cr.P.C.The magistrate who records a confession under Section
164, Criminal Procedure Code, must, therefore, warn the accused who is about to
confess that he may or may not be taken as an approval. After warning the
accused he must give time to think over the matter and then only record the
confession. Such a confession is called judicial confession.

2)Extra Judicial confession :

Extra-Judicial Confession is made not before a Magistrate or any Court in due
course of judicial proceeding but is made either to police during the investigation
or into police custody or made otherwise than to the police. Extra-Judicial
confession is not relevant.
Extra-judicial Confession (Sec.24,25,26) -
S.24. Confession 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 him.

S.25. Confession to police officer not to be proved:

No confession made to police officer shall be proved as against a person accused
of any offence,custody of police not to be proved against him.

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 be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as
against such person.
Explanation.—
In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging
magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George , or elsewhere, unless
such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882)

Case law:
1) Heramba Brahma vs State of Assam AIR 1982 SC 1595,
Held - that the extra-judicial confession not trustworthy cannot be used for
corroboration of any other Evidence.
Chittar vs State of Rajasthan 1994 Cr.L.J 249 SC,
Held that where confessional statement is inconsistent with medical evidence,
conviction of the accused solely based on extra-judicial confession is not proper.

Conclusion -
The term confession is no where defined in the Indian Evidence Act. every
confession is admission but every admission is not confession. if statement is
made by a party is civil proceeding it will be called a admission, while it is made by
a party charged with crime in criminal proceeding it is called a confession.

3) Retracted Confession
The Accused person who confessed earlier and later denied such confession
does not destroy the evidentiary value of the confession as originally recorded.
The Supreme Court has stated that a Retracted confession may form the basis of
a conviction if it receives some general corroboration from other independent
evidence. But if the court finds that the confession originally recorded was
voluntary, it should be acted upon.

4) Confession by co-accused
Section 30.Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and
others jointly under trial for the same offense.
When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offense, 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.

Explanation: “Offence” as used in this Section, includes the abetment of, or

attempt to commit, the offense.
Illustrations
(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said – “B and I
murdered C”. the court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was
murdered by A and B and that B said, “A and I murdered C”. The statement may
not be taken into consideration by the Court against A and B is not being jointly
tried.

Confession to Police Officer

Section 25 of the Evidence Act is one of the provisions of law dealing with
Confessions made by an accused. The law relating to the Confessions is to be
found generally in Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Sections 162 to 164
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1998 Sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence are to
be found under the heading "Admissions".

Confession is a species of admission, and is dealt with in Sections 24 to 30. A

confession or an admission is evidence against the maker of it, unless its
admissibility is excluded by some provisions of law.
Section 24 excludes confessions caused by certain inducements, threats and
promises.

Confession To police Officer : Section 25 provides:

"No confession made to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person

accused of an offense".
The terms of section 25 are imperative. A confession made to a police officer
under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against the accused. It
covers a made when he was free and not in police custody, as also a confession
made before investigation has begun. The expressions "accused of any offense"
covers a person accused of an offense at the trial whether or not he was accused
of the offense when he made the confession.

Section 26 prohibits proof against any person of a confession made by him in the
custody of police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate. The partial Ban imposed by Section 26 relates to a confession made to
a person other than a police officer. Section 26 does not qualify the absolute ban
imposed by Section 25 on a confession made to a police officer.

Section 27 is in the form of a proviso, and partially lifts the ban imposed by
Section 24, 25 and 26. It provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered
in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offense, in
the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 162 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure forbids the use of a statement made by any person to police
officer in the course of an investigation for any purpose at any inquiry or trial in
respect of the offense under investigation save as mentioned in the proviso and in
cases falling under sub-section (2) it specifically provides that nothing in it shall be
deemed to affect the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The words of Section 162 are wide enough to include a confession made to
a police officer in the course of Investigation. A statement or confession made in
the course of an investigation may be recorded by Magistrate under Section 164
of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to the safeguards imposed by the
section. Thus except as provided by Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a confession
by an accused to a police officer is absolutely protected under Section 25 of the
Evidence Act, and if it is made in course of investigation it is also protected by
Section162 of the Criminal Procedure, and a confession to any other person made
by him while in the custody of police officer is protected by Section 26 unless it is
made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
 These provisions seems to proceed upon the view that confessions made by an
accused to a police officer or made by him while he is in the custody of police
officer not to be trusted, and should not be used in evidence against him. They
are based upon Grounds of public policy, and the fullest effect should be given to
them.

CONFESSION WHEN BECOMES IRRELEVANT

Sections 24, 25, 26 and relevant part of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 deals
with condition that when can confession be irrelevant.
Section 24 of Evidence Act provides that a confession made by a person who is
accused of some offence is irrelevant if such confession comes out of any
inducement, threat or promise and such instances have proceeded from a person
in authority like police, magistrate, court etc .As per section 24 the confession
becomes irrelevant:

As a result of inducement, threat or promise;

Inducement, etc be made from a person in authority;
It should relate to a charge in question; and
It should hold out some worldly benefit or advantage.

Relevant Case Law

1) Sita Ram vs. State :
The accused was convicted of murder, one of the items of evidence being a
confessional letter written by the accused and left near the dead body with
the intention of being seen by police officer.
The Supreme Court held that “It is not a confession made to a Police Officer
coming within the ban of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The Police Officer was
not nearby when the letter was written, or knew that it was being written. In such
circumstances the letter would not be a confession to a Police Officer even
though it was addressed to the police officer."

That dissenting opinion was that:

"A confessional letter written to a police officer and sent to him by post,
messenger or otherwise is not outside the ban of Section 25 because the Police
Officer was ignorant of the letter at the moment when it was being written."

The Section puts complete embargo on the reception in evidence of such

confessions. If it is made to a police officer and the person confessing is later put
up for trial, the confession is totally irrelevant.

When confession are relevant?

The following three types of confessions are relevant and admissible, viz.—

1. Confession made after removal of threat, inducement or promise.

(S. 28):

As is referred to in S. 24,If such a confession is made after the impression caused

by any such inducement, threat or promise has been fully removed, it is
relevant,in the opinion of the Court.
This is an exception to the rule contained in S. 24. It lays down the conditions
under which a confession, which is rendered irrelevant by S. 24, may become
relevant. If it is proved, to the complete satisfaction of the Court, that the
impression produced by the threat or promise has been totally removed, e.g., by
lapse of time or by any intervening caution given by a person of superior (but not
of equal or inferior) authority, a confession subsequently made will be admissible.

Such a confession is placed on the same footing as a voluntary confession. In all

cases, it is for the Judge to properly weigh all the facts and circumstances of the
case to come to a definite conclusion that the impression caused by the
inducement, threat or promise has been completely removed.

In one case, a female servant was suspected of stealing money, and on Monday,
her mistress told her, “You will be forgiven if you confess.” On Tuesday, she was
taken before a Magistrate, and as she did not confess, she was discharged. Then,
on Wednesday, she was arrested once again, and the Police Superintendent told
her in the presence of the mistress, “You are not bound to say anything, but if you
do, your mistress will hear you.”

However, the Police Superintendent did not know that her mistress had promised
to forgive her, and he did not tell her that if she made a statement, it would be
given in evidence against her. The servant then made a confession. It was held
that a confession made in these circumstances was not receivable in evidence,
because it can be fairly presumed that the promise of the mistress was operating
on the servant’s mind at the time the statement was made, all the more so, as the
interval between the two days was such a short one.

2. Confession made under promise, deception, etc. (S. 29):

If a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant, merely
because it was made—
(a) Under a promise of secrecy; or
(b) In consequences of a deception practised on the accused person for the
purpose of obtaining it; or
(c) When the accused was drunk; or
(d) In answer to questions he need not have answered; or
(e) When the accused was not warned :—

(i) That he was not bound to make such confession, and

(ii) That evidence of it might be given against him.

This section is based on the well-established rule of law that any breach of
condifence or of good faith or the practice of any artifice does not invalidate a
confession. The five circumstances mentioned in this section are not exhaustive.
Although the mere use of an artifice to obtain a confession does not make such
confession inadmissible, such confession would not carry much weight.

Thus, in an American case, a confession was obtained by fasely telling the accused
that he was seen by someone when he did the act, and the Court held that such a
confession was inadmissible.

3. Confession leading to discovery of fact (S. 27):

When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information
received from an accused person in the custody of a police-officer, so much of
such information (whether it amounts to a confession or not), as relates distinctly
to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
Principle of S. 27:
This section is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is
supported by the discovery of a fact, it may be presumed to be true and not to
have been extracted. This rule comes into operation only—

(1) If and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of

information received from an accused person in police custody; and
(2) If the information relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.

The broad ground for not admitting confessions made under the inducement,
threat, or promise to a police-officer is the danger of admitting false confessions.
However, the necessity for this exclusion disappears in a case provided for by this
section, when the truth of the confession is guaranteed by the discovery of facts
in consequence of the information given.

Section 27 is an exception to the rules enacted in Sections 25 and 26 of the Act,

which provide that no confession made to a police- officer can be proved as
against a person accused of an offence, and that no confession made by any
person whilst he is in the custody of the police-officer, unless it is made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved as against that person:
Ramkrishan v. State (1955) S.C. 104), re-stating the opinion of the Privy Council in
Pullukury Kottaya v. Emperor, (1947 P. C. 67).

In the above Privy Council case, it was observed that it is fallicious to treat the
‘fact discovered’ as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered
embraced the place from which the object is produced, and the knowledge of the
accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact.
Information supplied by a person in custody that “I will produce a knife concealed
in the roof of my house’ does hot lead to the discovery of a knife, as knives were
discovered many years ago.
It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the
informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the
commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant.

The above was quoted with approval in Prabhoo v. State of U.P. (A.I.R. 1963 S.C.
113).

The Kerala High Court has held that there is nothing in S. 27 to indicate that the
person who discovers the incriminating fact should be the identical person who
has received the information. All that is necessary is that in respect of such
information, the accused should be at the giving end and a police-officer at the
receiving end. (Sekharan v. State of Kerala, 1980 Cr. C.J. 31)

The Supreme Court has held that failure on the part of the police to interrogate
the accused, at whose instance a weapon was recovered, cannot be sufficient
justification to hold that the recovery of the weapon was fake. (State of Haryana
v. Sher Singh, (1981) 2 S.C.C. 300)

The Patna High Court has observed that a statement leading to the recovery of a
dead body cannot be used against any person other than he make of such
statement. (Surendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1992 Cri. L.J. 2190).
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSION AND CONFESSION:-
All Confession are admission but all admission are not
confession :

The principle difference between admission and confession are as follows:

Since, the definition of admission is also applicable to that of confession and

confession comes under the topic of ‘admission,’ it can be inferred that admission
is a broader term and it covers confessions. Hence, all confessions are admissions
but not all admissions are confessions.
An admission can either be in favor or against the interest of the party making it
whereas a confession is always against the interest of the party making it.
A confession is binding on the co-accused, whereas this is not the case in
admissions.
An admission can be made by a third party, too but confession proceeds from a
person who has committed the crime
Admission is not a conclusive proof but a confession is taken to be a satisfactory
proof of guilt of the accused.
All Confession are admission but all admission are not confession.

DISTINCTION:--ADMISSION-CONFESSION:-

A)If a statement is made by a party in civil proceeding it will be called as

admission .
If a statement made by a party charged with crime, in criminal proceeding, it is
called as a confession
B)The expression ‘Admission’ means“ voluntary acknowledgement of the
existence or truth of a particular fact”

The expression ‘Confession’ means “a statement made by an accused admitting

his guilt. If a person accused of an offense (accused) makes a statement against
him, it is called confession.

C)The Term Admission is applicable to a statement, oral or in writing made by a

party on civil side.

Confession is the term for admission of guilt, made in the criminal side.

D)An admission is not conclusive proof of the matters admitted and is always
rebuttable.
An Confession is conclusive proof of the matters admitted and is always
irrebuttable.

E)An admission may be proved by or behalf of the person making it.

But confession always goes against the person making it.

F)An admission may be made by an agent in course of business.

While an agent can never make the confession of an offense against a co-
defendant.
G)Admission by one of the several defendants in suit is not evidence against other
defendants.

Confession made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same
offense can be taken into consideration against the co-accused.

H)Retraction is not possible in Admission.

Retraction is possible in Confession.

i)Admission is a genus,
Confession is specie hence all confessions are admissions but all admissions are
not confessions.

J)Admission can be either in favor or against the party making it

Confession is always against the party making it.