See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/373454156

Confessions under the Indian Evidence Act

Article · August 2023

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8296723

CITATIONS READS

0 2,087

2 authors, including:

Shivam Pandey
Raksha Shakti University
148 PUBLICATIONS 18 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shivam Pandey on 29 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725

LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY

ISSN- 2583-8725

VOLUME-1 ISSUE-3
YEAR: 2023

EDITED BY:
LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND
POLICY

(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 1 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725

LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOLUME-1: ISSUE-3

[COPYRIGHT © 2023 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY]

All Copyrights are reserved with the Authors. But, however, the Authors have granted to the
Journal (Lex Scripta Magazine of Law and Policy), an irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free
and transferable license to publish, reproduce, store, transmit, display and distribute it in the
Journal or books or in any form and all other media, retrieval systems and other formats now
or hereafter known.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, distributed, or transmitted in any form
or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical
methods, without the prior permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations
embodied in critical reviews and certain other non- commercial uses permitted by copyright
law.

The Editorial Team of Lex Scripta Magazine of Law and Policy Issues holds the copyright to
all articles contributed to this publication. The views expressed in this publication are purely
personal opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Team
of Lex Scripta Magazine of Law and Policy.

[© Lex Scripta Magazine of Law and Policy. Any unauthorized use, circulation or reproduction
shall attract suitable action under application law.]

(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 2 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
Confessions under the Indian Evidence Act
Author: Viveka Kumar
(Research Scholar, Rashtriya Raksha University)
Co-author: Shivam Kumar Pandey
(Research Scholar, Rashtriya Raksha University)

Abstract
The Indian Evidence Act does not define the word Confession, but Confession is a statement
made by an accused person who is associated with a crime, which infers that they committed a
crime. The Act does not differentiate between the Admission and the Confession, but there is a
fragile line difference between Admission and Confession. Confessions are upgrades of
Admission, making them unique.
Admission can be judicial or extrajudicial, with judicial Admission admitted at the time of the
judicial trial and extrajudicial Admission of facts made during normal day-to-day activities. Judicial
admissions or extra judicial admissions are entirely admissible by the court of law under Section
58 and have much higher probative value into substantive any fused against or go against the
confessor of the statements, with exceptions to Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Confessions can be of different types depending on the nature of the case. Judicial confessions are
made on or before a magistrate or court of law during criminal proceedings, while extrajudicial
confessions are made at any place other than the court. The court must examine the confessions
efficiently and ensure they are valid and supported by other evidence. Retracted confessions can
be used against the person confessing if supported by independent and corroborative evidence.
The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 deals with only the conditions when a confession can be
irrelevant. Section 24 states that a confession made by a person accused of some offence is
irrelevant if it comes out of inducement, threat, or promise and has occurred from a person in
authority, such as a magistrate or court. Section 26 prohibits judicial bodies from proving the guilt
of the accused by their Confession. Section 27 lifts the ban on admitting confessions made to
police officers in police custody, aiming to help in further discovery of facts and prove other
relevant facts.
Keywords: Confession, State, Indian Evidence Act, Section 17, Case laws, Constitution of
India

(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 3 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
1. Introduction
The Indian Evidence Act defines "confession" as any statement made by an accused person
charged with a crime, suggesting or suggesting the inference that they committed a crime. The
term "confession" is not defined or expressed in the Indian Evidence Act, but the inference
explained under the definition of Admission in Section 17 applies to Confession in the same
manner. Confessions are statements made by the person charged with criminal offences,
suggesting a conclusion to any fact in issue or relevant facts. They may infer any reasoning for
concluding or suggesting that the accused is guilty of a crime.
The Indian Evidence Act also has a thin line difference between Admission and Confession, as
Admission only ends up in Admission of guilt by the accused. Confessions are upgrades of
Admission, making them memorable. The court should begin ascertaining the case facts with all
other evidence related to the case before turning to the approach of Confession by the accused to
administer complete justice to the conclusion of guilt.
Admission plays a vital part in judicial proceedings; if either party proves that the other party has
admitted the fact in issue or relevant facts, it becomes easy for the court to administer justice
effectively. Section 17 to 23 of the Indian Evidence Act deals explicitly with the portions related
to Admission.

"Admission can be judicial or extrajudicial, with judicial Admission made at the time of the judicial
proceeding and extrajudicial Admission made during normal day-to-day activities. Judicial
Admission or judicial admissions are completely admissible by the court of law under Section 58
of the same Act and have much higher probative value in substantiating any fact".
The Indian Evidence Act has lifted the concept of Admission and Confession, explaining that
discretionary and undeviating cognizance of guilt is Confession, and the Confession made by the
accused may be used as a piece of damaging evidence against him. However, admissions
acknowledged by the person who admitted the fact may not be considered conclusive proof of
facts admitted, and the admitted matter or facts can only be considered as substantive or probative
evidence of Admission. Confession is a statement made by a person charged with criminal
offences, which can infer any reason for concluding or suggesting guilt of a crime. It is made by
the person who is charged with the crime and may infer any reason for concluding or suggesting
that he is guilty of a crime. The concept of Confession usually deals with criminal proceedings,
with no specific section defining it.

(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 4 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
"Confessions can be used or go against the confessor of the statements, with exceptions to Section
21 of the Indian Evidence Act. Confessions confessed by more than one person jointly for the
same offence can be considered against others accused of the same crime under Section 30 of the
Indian Evidence Act"1.
Confessions can be of different types depending on the matter of the case. Judicial Confession,
also known as judicial Confession, is made by giving statements in the court of law, while
extrajudicial Confession is made at any place other than the court. Both types of confessions have
different values and relevancy in determining the accused's guilt.
Judicial confessions are made before a magistrate or court during criminal proceedings, while
extrajudicial confessions are made at any place other than the court. The court must take care to
check if the Confession made by the accused is voluntary and authentic so that no innocent person
can be charged for wrongful acts of others, as provided in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution.
Extrajudicial confessions, also known as extrajudicial confessions, are made at any place other than
the court and can be made in the form of prayer or in a private room or self-conversation. Both
judicial and extrajudicial confessions can be accepted in the court but have different evidentiary
values or probative values to establish any fact. A conviction will not solely be based on the
Confession, but the court will test the extrajudicial Confession to make any person guilty of any
offence committed by them.
In "State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh, The Supreme Court held that an extrajudicial
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 them"2. In "Balwinder Singh v. State, the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of credibility in determining the credibility of a confession. The court must examine
the confessions efficiently and ensure that they are true and supported by other evidence. Retracted
confessions, which are voluntarily made by the confessor but later revoked or retracted, can be
used against the person confessing if they are supported by independent and corroborative
evidence"3.
In "Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court lifted the requirement that a retracted
confession has enough value to form any other legal grounds to establish a conviction only if the
court satisfies that it was true and was on someone's own will. In Pancho v. State of Haryana, the

1
Indian Evidence Act 1872
2 1952 AIR 214
3 1996 AIR 607
(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 5 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
court held that confessions made by co-accused do not have much evidentiary value and can only
be used to corroborate the conclusion drawn out by other probative evidence"4.
The "Indian Evidence Act 1872 deals with the conditions when a confession can be irrelevant.
Section 24 of the Act states that a confession made by a person accused of some offence is
irrelevant if it comes out of inducement, threat, or promise and has occurred from a person in
authority, such as a magistrate or court. The Confession must be out of inducement, threat, or
promise, relate to the charge in question, and have the benefit of temporal nature or
disadvantage"5.
"Confessions made to police officers are not admissible as evidence in a court of law against the
accused to prove their guilt. Section 26 prohibits judicial bodies from proving the guilt of the
accused by their Confession. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act lifts the ban on admitting
confessions made to police officers in police custody. The Act allows for the Admission of
statements made by an accused, even to police officers, aiming to help in further discovery of facts
and prove other relevant facts. This provision allows for the Admission of confessions made to
police officers in police custody, even if recorded in the immediate presence of a magistrate. The
Supreme Court explained that this Confession may help in further discovery of facts and help the
court prove other relevant facts"6.

2.1 Meaning of Confession

As per Sir James Stephen, "As an admission made at the time by a person charged with the crime
stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime"7.
However, Confession is not defined in the Indian Evidence Act, but it is defined and explained by
the various jurists and the author. "Section 17 defines the term admission. An admission is a
statement oral or documentary or contained in electronic form which suggests an inference to any
fact in issue or relevant fact, which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances
hereinafter mentioned"8.
Presently, in the wake of understanding the revelation of both the terms (Admission and
Confession), it is clear that both include the facts of the case. Admission includes the relevant
facts, which is permissible by the court, but the Confession. It is not necessary that every fact is

4 1963 AIR 1094

5 Indian Evidence Act 1872
6
Indian Evidence Act 1872
7https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-138-admissions-and-confessions-under-indian-evidence-act-1872
8 Indian Evidence Act 1872

(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 6 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
admissible in the case in which facts are admitted in the case when the facts themselves are
admitted by the accused or the offender who is directly or indirectly involved in the case that
admitted facts is known as Confession. Subsequently, the Confession is facts which are made by
an individual who is accused of any criminal offences and such proclamations presented by him
will recommend an end regarding any reality in issue or as to essential realities. The assertions
might induce any thinking for closing or recommending that he is at legitimate fault for
wrongdoing. We may likewise characterize the Confession all in all as the admitted facts by the
accused in the criminal procedures.

2.1.2 Case laws

2.1.2.1 In Pakala Narayan Swamy Vs. The King Emperor Lord Atkin said, "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 of itself a confession"9.
2.1.2.2 In "Palvinder Kaur V. Province of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India uplifted the
decision taken by the privy council in the Pakala Narayan Swami case on the basis of two reasons.
Firstly, the statement made by the person confirming that he is guilty of any offence or Admission
made by him indicating all the facts which constitute the offence is considered a confession.
Secondly, when the statement made by any person is sufficient for acquittal of the person from
his statement, then these statements cannot come under the ambit of the confession"10.
2.1.2.3 In "Nishi Kant Jha v Territory of Bihar, the Supreme Court focuses on relying on the
statement confessed by the accused before or during the trial or neglects some parts of the

9 (1939) 66IA 66
10 AIR 1952 SC 354
(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 7 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
admitted facts or denies the statement which is made by himself, then the court will focus on the
inculpatory part of the statement, i.e. confession"11.

2.2 Meaning of Admission

Definition of Admission: - Famous Scholars Stephen, Wills, etc., have defined the term admission
in their own way. However, these definitions are insignificant in the context of courts in India
because the Indian Evidence Act expressly defined the term admission in section 17. Therefore,
in India, the term admission is governed by the definition given in Section 17 and not by the
definition of the various Scholars.
According to "Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, the definition of admission is: - An
Admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form which suggests any
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and
under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned"12.
In other words, an admission is a statement that is made by the victim or accused in the form of
oral, documentary and electronic form. Which inference regarding facts-in-issue or relevant fact
and the statement has been made by any of the persons given in sections 18, 19 and 20 and made
in the circumstances given in sections 21 to 23?
In Rakesh Waddhawan Vs. Jagadamba Industrial Corporation, "Admission is only a piece
of evidence and can be explained. It does not conclusively bind a party unless it amounts to an
estoppel. The value of an admission has to be determined by keeping in view the circumstances in
which it was made and to whom. A mere failure to object cannot be placed on a footing higher
than an admission"13.

2.3 Difference between Confession and Admission

Admission and Confession are correlated to each other, but both are different in two senses.
Admission is defined in the I.E. Act, but Confession is used only on the basis of the interpretation
of the courts in the cases.
There is some difference between the Admission and the Confession, which is given below: -

11
AIR 1969 SC 422
12 Indian Evidence Act 1872
13 AIR 2002 SC 2004

(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 8 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
1. A confession is a statement made by an accused person that is sought to be proved against
him in criminal proceedings to establish the commission of an offence by him, whereas
Admission is a statement of a person that suggests the inference regarding any fact-in-issue
or relevant facts in both civil and criminal cases.
2. Confession always goes against the person making it, while Admission may be used on
behalf of the person making it under the exceptions provided in section 21.
3. "Confession has been defined nowhere in the Indian Evidence Act. It was defined by the
privy council in the case of Pakala Narayana Swami Vs. King Emperor, whereas
Admission has been defined in section 17"14.
4. "Confession, if deliberately and voluntarily made, may be accepted as conclusive of the
matters confessed. Admission is not conclusive as to the matters admitted; it may operate
as an estoppel (Section 31)"15.
5. Confession is Admission in criminal cases only, but Admission is admissible in both
criminal as well as in civil cases.

2.4 Types of Confession

A confession is not defined in the Indian Evidence Act 1872 but is interpreted by the Supreme
Court with the help of various court decisions in the Indian legal system. There are different kinds
of Confession, but the courts differentiate the different kinds of Confession on the basis of the
style of the recording of the accused statement in the court or outside of the court. The statement
which is recorded by the magistrate is called judicial Confession, and statements recorded outside
the court are called extra judicial Confession and so on.

2.4.1 Judicial Confession

Judicial Confession is a confession that is made before a magistrate or court during judicial
proceedings is known as judicial judicial Confession.
Evidentiary Value: -

14 (1939) 66IA 66
15 Indian Evidence Act 1872
(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 9 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
A judicial confession is a substantive piece of evidence, and an accused may be convicted only on
such evidence if the court is convinced that the Confession is true and voluntary. For Example- A
confession made to a Magistrate made to a magistrate order Section-16416.
In "Modi Ganga Vs. State The supreme court held that the confessional statement, when
recorded in accordance with sections 164 and 364, Cr.P.Code, can be admitted in evidence without
the magistrate recording such statement being examined" 17.

2.4.2 Extrajudicial Confession

A confession that is not judicial is known as extrajudicial Confession. For example- Confessions
made by father, teacher, friend etc.
Evidentiary value:-
"There is no legal bar to convict the accused only on the basis of extrajudicial Confession, but a
supreme court in Pyare Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan Held that the rule of court requires that an
accused should not be convicted on the basis of Extra Judicial confession unless it is corroborated,
especially in serious cases like murder and culpable homicide."18 That is why "Supreme Court Jagta
v State of Haryana held that extrajudicial confession is a fragile type of evidence"19.
Lord Macaulay also remarks "that a person should not be convicted on the basis of such confession
because generally such a type of confession is made verbally and even an honest man may
misunderstand the words altered to him"20.
The distinction between the Judicial Confession and Extra Confession
1. "A Judicial confession is made before a magistrate or court, whereas an Extra Judicial
confession is made to any person other than a magistrate or court.
2. A Judicial confession is made during judicial proceedings, but it is not so in the case of
Extra judicial Confession.
3. An Extra judicial confession is weaker evidence than a judicial confession, and it requires
corroboration in order to base a conviction on it".

2.4.3 Retracted Confession

16 Criminal Procedure Code 1973

17 AIR 1981 SC 1165
18
AIR 1963 SC 1094
19 AIR 1974 SC 1545
20https://pg.punjab.gov.pk/confessions_and_statements_uss_164_364_crpc

(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 10 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
The English importance of withdrawal is the activity of stepping back from something. Confession
is a sort of Confession that is intentionally made by the questioner; however, subsequently, it is
denied or retracted by a similar inquisitor. A retracted Confession can be used against the individual
who is admitting a few withdrawn explanations in the event that it is validated by another free and
demonstrative proof.
In "Abdul Ghani Vs. State The supreme court held that when the accused did not make a
confession which has been already made earlier, i.e. the accused back out his/her earlier statement
made by him/her, it amounts to retraction of Confession already made"21.
In "Shankara Vs. State The supreme court held that retracted Confession may form the basis for
conviction without corroboration if it is found to be perfectly voluntary and if so is further found
to be true and trustworthy"22.
In the "Union of India Vs. J.S. Brar In This case, the Supreme Court overruled the earlier
judgement"23. "Shankara Vs. State and held that the retracted Confession without independent
corroboration cannot sustain a conviction"24.

Confession by co-accused:
When the number of accused is more than one, and the nature of offences indicates that one or
more than one accused is involved in the crime, the statement made by one of them is relevant to
each other. So, the admitted facts by the co-accused by one of them are binding for all accused in
the same offence, not for the other offence.
The High Court, on account of "Pancho v. Province of Haryana, held that the Confessions
made by the co-accused do not have much evidentiary worth and cannot be considered a
meaningful piece of proof. In this way, the Confession made by the co-accused must be utilized
to substantiate the end excessively long by other probative proof"25.
For example, assume three people, Rahul, Sami and Guddu, are accused together of similar
offences, and they are arraigned for the homicide of Cruel. Furthermore, during the legal
procedures, Rahul admitted that he, Sami and Guddu murdered, and on the off chance that his
explanations of the Rahul are perceived as obvious articulations, the court might utilize the
Confession of Rahul against all the accused and can be the ground of the conviction for all three

21 AIR 1973 SC 264

22 AIR 1978 SC 1248
23
AIR 1993 SC 773
24 AIR 1978 SC 1248
25 AIR (2011) 10 SC 165

(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 11 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
accused. The Confession made by Rahul is also used as the Confession made by Sami and Guddu.
Furthermore, it is the basis of the convictions.

2.5 When Confession is Irrelevant

Sections 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 are irrelevant in the general sense, but
they may be relevant after the corroborating evidence is produced in the court.
Section 24: - "Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 provides that when an accused makes
the confession as a result of the Inducement, threat or promise given by a person in a uthority,
such a confession would not be relevant in any criminal proceeding if the inducement,
threat or promise is of temporal nature and related to the allegation levelled against the
accused"26.
It is notable that the term person in authority used in "section 24 has not been defined by the
Indian Evidence Act. But in the famous case of Santokhi Beldar Vs. R The Patne High held that
a person in authority means some are engaged in the arrest, detention, examination or prosecution
of the accused or by someone acting in the presence and without the dissent of such a person" 27.
Section 25: - "Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 declares that "No Confession made to
a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence". In other words, it can
be said that a confession made by an accused to a police officer is not relevant as such not
admissible in evidence against the accused"28.
Section 26:- "It is notable that section 26 is nothing but the extension of section 25 (Confession
made to the police officer is irrelevant). Section 25 applies to all confessions made to police
officers, whereas section 26 26 applies to Confession to whosoever made (other than police
officers) by a person while in police custody Ramesh Chandra Vs. Babulal29 and Muthu Kumar
Swami Vs. R"30.

26 Indian Evidence Act 1872

27 AIR 1933 Pat 149
28
Indian Evidence Act 1872
29 2014 AIR 509 F.B
30 1935 M 397, 456
(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 12 ([email protected])
 LEX SCRIPTA MAGAZINE OF LAW AND POLICY, VOL-1, ISSUE-3
ISSN-2583-8725
"Section 26 lays down that confession made to any person when the maker of confession is in
police custody cannot be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a
magistrate"31.
It is notable that section 26 is in two parts; the first part of the section is known as the general
rule, whereas the second part of the section is known as the exception to the general rule.
The first part of the section makes all the confessions irrelevant if they are made when the accused
is in the custody of the police.
However, according to the second part of the section, such confessions are relevant if they are
made in the immediate presence of the magistrate, though the accused is in police custody.
Section 27: - "Section 27 Provides that when an accused gives some information during police
custody and as a result of such information, a fact is discovered that part of the information which
is directly related to the discovery of a fact is relevant, whether information amounts to confession
or not the facts discovered would be relevant even if the information is in the nature of
confession"32.
In fact, "section 27 is an exception to section 25 and section 26. That is why the Supreme Court
also in Delhi Administration Vs. Bal Krishna and in Md. Inatulla Vs. The state33 made the
scope of section 27 clear and held that section 27 is by way of a proviso (the exception to sections
25 and 26), and a statement even by way of Confession made in police custody which distinctly
relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused"34.
Conditions for the application of "section 27, in order to apply section 27, the following
conditions must be satisfied: -
a. The person giving the information must be an accused.
b. The accused must be in the custody of the police.
c. The statement of the accused (Whether Confession or not) must be distinctly related to
the discovery of a fact"35.

31 Indian Evidence Act 1872

32 Indian Evidence Act 1872
33
AIR 1976 SC 83
34 AIR 1972 SC 3
35 Indian Evidence Act 1872

(Website-lexscriptamagazine.com) 13 ([email protected])

View publication stats