Confessions under the Indian Evidence Act

Meaning 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”.
In Pakala Narayan Swami V. Emperor,
Facts
In Pakala Narayana Swami v King Emperor, on March 23, 1937, the lifeless body
of Kurree Nukaraju, an Indian individual, was discovered in a steel trunk within a
third-class compartment at Puri, the terminus of a branch line on the Bengal
Nagpur railway. The trunk had been left unclaimed and a gruesome discovery was
made as the body had been dismembered into seven portions. Medical evidence
unequivocally pointed to murder. The accused and his household came under
police suspicion.
During the investigation at the accused’s residence, a statement was given to the
police, wherein the accused claimed that the deceased had visited his house on
March 21, spent the night in one of the outhouse rooms and departed on the
evening of March 22 by a passenger train. The defence objected to the admission
of this statement, yet it was accepted by the lower courts.
Apart from the contested statement, substantial evidence indicated that the
accused had ordered a trunk, which was delivered to his house on March 22. On
March 23, the same trunk, now containing the deceased’s body, was placed on a
train at the Berhampur station. The accused, along with the trunk, was transported
to the station in a vehicle he had arranged.
The widow of the deceased also attested that on March 20, her late husband
informed her of his intention to travel to Berhampur. He claimed to have received
a communication from the accused’s wife, instructing him to collect payment of
his dues.
The Sessions Judge in Berhampur convicted the appellant of murder and imposed
a death sentence. The High Court of Patna, upon appeal, affirmed the conviction.
The appellant sought recourse to the Privy Council, appealing by special leave.
Issues Raised
The issues raised in Pakala Narayana Swami v KING Emperor were:
• Whether the statement made by the accused can be construed as a confession?
• Whether the deceased’s statement to his wife, indicating his intention to travel to
Berhampur to retrieve a loan, qualify as a dying declaration?
 Judgment in Pakala Narayana Swami v King Emperor
The Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swami v King-Emperor rendered its opinion,
asserting that the statement provided by the accused was a mixture of confession
and an attempt to explain his innocence. In light of granting the benefit of doubt,
the Privy Council overturned the accused’s conviction, elucidating the following
observations:
• The term “confession” can be derived from an accused’s statement implying the
inference that he committed the crime.
• A confession, by definition, either expressly admits to the offence or, at the very least,
substantially admits all the facts constituting the offence.
• An admission of gravely incriminating facts, even if not conclusively incriminating,
cannot be classified as a confession.
• A statement containing self-explanatory matter cannot qualify as a confession; it must
either be accepted in its entirety or rejected.
• The statement of the deceased to his wife was recognised as a dying declaration and
deemed admissible under Section 32(1).
the Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swami v King-Emperor set aside the
conviction of the accused, giving the benefit of the doubt. The Privy Council
expressed the opinion that the statement of the accused was partly confession
and partly explanation for his innocence.

Lord Atkin observed that “A confession must either be

admitted in the context of any offence or in relation with any
substantial facts which inaugurate the offence with criminal
proceedings.
Conclusively confession means any statements made by an
accused which proves his guilt. Or when a person accused of
any offence makes any statement against him which may
prove his guilt, is called confession or confessional
statement.

Types of Confession and process of

recording confession
Formal Confession
Formal confession is also known as Judicial Confession and
those statements which are made before an office of
magistrate or in the court of law during any criminal
 proceedings are known as formal or judicial confession. A
judicial confession not much other than a “plea of guilty” as
per the provision explained under Article 20(3) ensures that
no person accused of an offense shall be compelled to be a
witness against themselves. This means that an individual
cannot be forced to provide evidence or testimony that may
incriminate themselves. It is a fundamental right that
protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses
in their own criminal prosecution. Under Indian
Constitution otherwise any confession made against the
person who is making the confession will have no
evidentiary value and he cannot be concluded guilty of any
offence on the behalf of such confession..

Examples of Judicial confession

Section 80 . Presumption as to documents
produced as record of evidence. Indian Evidence
Act give the evidentiary value to the judicial confession and
expresses that a confession made in the presence of
magistrate or in the court which is recorded by the
magistrate as prescribed by the law then such confession
shall be presumed to be true and genuine confession and the
accused can be tried with the offence.
Section 164 of CrPC empowers magistrate to record
confession so it is not necessary that which magistrate
recorded the confession unless he is restricted to record the
confession. Hence, for raising the presumption the identity of
the accused must be clear and proved in the confession to
persecute him for the guilt of the offence he committed.
Judicial confessions should not be mixed up with informal
confession though being a part of the same branch but both
have different values and relevancy in determining the
accused’s guilt. There may be some arguments stating that a
conviction can be arranged even on the basis of an extra-
judicial confession but on the other hand we must also see that
there is no reason in neglecting the arrangement of conviction
solely based on the judicial confession. So a confession made
by the accused where his statements are leading himself to the
bar is probative evidence to prove his guilt but all such
confession shall be made in the presence of a magistrate or in
a court of law. On the other side the court must take care of all
the necessary steps to check if the confession made by the
accused which may prove his guilt must be voluntary and
true, so that no innocent can be charged for wrongful act of
others as provided in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution
which talks about ‘self incrimination’

Informal Confession
Informal confession is also known as extrajudicial
confession and those statements which are made at any
place other than the place where there is an absence of
magistrate or at any place other than the court is considered
as an extra-judicial confession. It is not necessary that the
statements should have been addressed to any definite
individual. Just like in the principle of judicial
confession, informal confession can also be made in the
form of prayer, the informal confession is in any private
room or a self conversation. But the court has to take care
that no matter judicial or extrajudicial confession, the
confession by the accused must be consistent with Article
20(3) of Indian Constitution which say ‘No one should be
compelled to give evidence against himself’ that means the
confession should be on the will of the confessor and must
 be true, then only a person can be charged for any criminal
offence.
A person expressing the guilt of the offence he committed
to any private person like any friend or his related persons
than such commission of a crime will cover the aspects of
extrajudicial confession. & a conviction will not solely be
based on the confession rather the court will test the
extrajudicial confession to make any person guilty of any
offence committed by him.

Evidentary value of Extra-judicial confession

Though extra-judicial confession don’t have much
evidentiary value as compared to judicial confession but in
the case of a written confession the writing of the accused
itself is one of the best evidence available to the court to
charge the accused of the offence. And if the confession is
not available in the form of written statements then the court
may test the oral confession of the accused which was made
to any other person. On the court’s discretion and
satisfaction, the statements of the accused to any other
person may be admissible and thereafter the accused may
be prosecuted for the offence on which he is charged
In, State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh the Supreme Court in
this case held that an extra-judicial confession’s value only
increases when it is clearly consistent and convincing to the
conclusion of the case otherwise the accused cannot be held
liable for the conviction solely on the basis of the confession
made by him.
In, Balwinder Singh v. State the Supreme Court has
mentioned some guidelines in the form of deciding the case
that in the case of extrajudicial confession the court must
check for the credibility of the person making the confession
 and all of his statements shall be tested by the court to
conclude whether the person who made the confession is
trustworthy or not, otherwise a person who is not so
trustworthy then his statements cannot be used for making
any inference to prove the guilt of the accused.
In, Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu the Supreme Court
while deciding the case has made few principles in the form
of guidelines where the court has to check such principles
before admitting the confession of the accused.
• Extrajudicial confessions are generally a very weak
kind of evidence by itself and the court must examine
such statements efficiently.
• Extrajudicial confession should be made by the
person’s own will and such statements must be true.
• The evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession

instantly increases when it is supported by other

such evidence.

Retracted confession
Retracted confession has circumstantial evidentiary that the
cognizance of any offence the police investigate the case on the
basis of their investigation they examine the witnesses, fact in
issues, accused and many more things. If in the opinion of
investigation, police found that the accused is guilty of a
particular offence then they submit a report to the concerned
magistrate or the court. During the court proceeding, the
magistrate has to take pieces of evidence and examines the
accused and if on the behalf of investigation report the courts
find someone guilty of any particular offence then the court
shall direct the accused to confess the statements again. When
the trial begins the magistrate has to ask the accused that if he
is guilty of an offence or not and if the accused don’t plead
guilty then he may retract all the confession made to the police
during the police investigation and must substantiate his
retracted confession. So the value of retracted evidence has
circumstantial evidentiary value, therefore, the court has to
make any inference very cautiously.
In PyareLal v. State of Rajasthan the Supreme Court, in
this case, lifted that a retracted confession has enough
values to form any other legal grounds to establish any
conviction only if the Court satisfies that it was true and was
on someone’s own will. But the Court has to testify that the
conviction cannot be solely be made on such confession
until and unless they are corroborated.

When is a confession irrelevant? Sec.22 TO

Sec. 24 BSA 2023 (Sec. 24 to Sec. 30 IEA
1872)

Sec. 22 (BSA) Confession caused by

inducement, threat, coercion or promise,
when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.
NOTE: section Section 24 IEA 1872 confession made by a
person who is accused of some offence is irrelevant if such
confession comes out of any inducement, threat or promise
same only one word added in section 22 (coercion)
Section 22 para 1 states that confessions are
irrelevant if it is made under inducement, threat,
promise, or coercion. For the confession to be
 irrelevant, it should be given by an authority in
charge and should be given in reference to the
charge made against the accused. Moreover, these
inducements, threats, or promises should be
sufficient in the eyes of the law to give the accused
person the grounds for believing that by doing so he
would gain any advantage regarding the proceedings
against him. He should have believed that by doing
so, he would have avoided any evil of temporal
nature.

The second part of Section 22 states that if the

confession is made after the impression of
inducement, or threat, Promise or coercion is over,
then such a confession would be relevant. Here, the
court should be satisfied that the confession has
been made free of will. (Note: section 28 of IEA 1872
merged here)

Para 3 of the above section states that if the

confessions are otherwise relevant, then they will not
become irrelevant on the ground that the confession
was made under a promise of secrecy, was made under
deception, or made when he was drunk, or it was made
when he was giving answers to questions that he was
not bound to answer, or he was not warned that he is
not bound to answer such questions as the evidence of
it might be used against him. Note: section 29 of IEA
1872 merged here)
Section 23 BSA 2023 Confessions to Police
Officers not relevant (Note: sec.25 Confession to
Police Officers Not to be Proved & Sec. 26
Confession by Accused When in Custody. IEA 1872
merged together in section 23 of BSA 2023)

Under this section any confession made directly to a

police officer by an accused cannot be used in court
against him.This is because there’s a higher risk that the
confession might have been coerced by the police
officer.
Exception
• But,if the confession is made in the presence of a
Magistrate while the person is still in police custody,it
can be considered and taken into account.
• If the police officer finds a new evidence or there is
a discovery of a new fact ,because of something the
accused confessed, that part of the confession can
be taken into consideration and used in a court
(Earlier under Section 25-27 of IEA,1872)

Section 24 BSA 2023: Confessions Involving

Multiple People (Note: refer section 30 of IEA
1872 confession by co accused same)
Under this section where more than one person is
involved in a trial for the same crime. If one person
confesses and that confession implicates others on trial
with them, the court can use this confession as evidence
against everyone involved in the trial for the same
 crime. Under this rule, when people are tried together, a
confession by one can impact all those involved.

(Confession by co-accused: sec.30 of IEA 1872 )

When there are more than one accused in a case and they are
jointly prosecuted for the same offence, and when any of them
confesses any statements against himself in such a way that he
may be proved guilty of that offence then the court on such
believes may prosecute other accused also who are jointly
persecuted in the same offence.
Illustration- If three persons Aman, Vinod and Vijay are
charged jointly for the same offence and they are prosecuted
for the murder of Harsh. And during the judicial proceedings,
Aman gives confessions that he along with Vinod and Vijay
killed Harsh and if the statements of the Aman are recognised
as true statements then the court may use the confession of
Aman against all the accused and can prove the guilt of Vinod
and Vijay also.

Conclusion
This protects the people from being forced into confessing
a crime they never did, which is very important for
preventing wrongful convictions.It ensures that voluntary
confessions can be used to bring the guilty to justice.