Confession, Judicial and Extra Judicial, Admissibility

3/23/13

Confessi on, Judici al and Extr a Judi ci al, admi ssibi li ty

Disclaimer  Information Inf ormation in this document i s being p rov rovided ided as-is without any warranty warranty/guarant /guarantee ee of a ny kind. We We have taken all reas onable m easu res to e nsure the quality, quality, reliability, reliability, and accuracy of the information in this document. However, However, we may hav have e mad e mis takes and we will not be respon sibl e for any loss or damage of  any kind aris ing becaus e of the usage of this information. Further, Further, upon dis cov covery ery of any error or omis sions , we m ay delete, add to, or amend informa tion on this webs ite without notice. notice. This docum ent is intended to provide provide in formation only. If you you are s eeking advice on any matters relating to information on this we bsite, you you s hould – where appropriate – contact us directly with your your s pecific query or  seek advice from from quali fied profess profess ional people.

Q. What do you understand by Confession? How does confession differ from admission? State the law relating to confessions. What is Judicial and Extra-Judicial confession? Under what circumstances is it relevant and when can it not be proved? State the extent, relevancy, and admissibility of a confession as evidence. How far can the statements of the accused made before the police be used against him? Genera enerall Concept of Confes Confession sion The term confess ion is not defined anywhere anywhere in Indian Evidence Act. Act. But it is thought that an Admi Admi ss ion in case of a criminal ma tt tter er is Confess Confess ion. The sam e was stated by STEPHEN STEPHEN in  in his digest that that that that a confe confess ss ion is an adm iss ion made at anytime any time by a person charged with a crim e, stating or sugg esting the inference that he comm itt itted ed the crime. However However,, Privy Privy Council, in case of Pakala Narayan Swa mi vs Emperor Emperor AIR 1939, did not accept this definition. In In this case Lord ATKIN obse rv rved ed that no statement that contains contains sel f exculpatory exculpatory matter can amou nt to a confession. Further, a confess ion m ust either admit in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An offence of a gravely grav ely incrim incrim inating fact, fact, is n ot in itself a confess ion. For exampl exampl e, an adm iss ion that the accused is the over over of and was in recent posses sion of the the knife or revolv revolver er which caused d eath with no explanation explanation of any other man's pos ses sio n, is not a confessi on even even though it strongly sugges ts that the the accused has comm itt itted ed the murder. The decision by Priv Privy y Council in Pakala Narayan Narayan Swam i cas e was approv approved ed by SC in the case of Palvinder Kaur vs State of  Punjab, AIR AIR 1952 195 2 . In In this cas e, Palvinder Palvinder was on trial for murder of her husband along with another, who all the tim e remain ed abs conding. In her statemen statemen t to to the court, court, her husband wa s hob by byist ist photographer and us ed to keep handy photo developing dev eloping m aterial which is quick poison. On this this occas ion, he was ill and sh e brought him s om e medicine and the me dicine was kept near the the liquid de veloper and by mis take swallowed the liquid and died. She got afraid and with the help of the absconder, she dum ped the body in the well. The statement, thus, thus, partially admitted guilt and partially show ed innocence. inno cence. Here, the low er courts s orted out the exculpatory part and conv con victed her on the inculpatory inculp atory part. However, SC rejected this this approach and held that the rule regarding confess confess ion and adm iss ion is that they they mu st either be accepted or  rejected as whole. Difference between Confession and Admission This brings us to the the main difference between between adm iss ion and confession. An An admis sion is a statement that may or may not be a conclus iv ive e evidence of a fact fact in iss ue or relevant fact fact but to to be a confessio n, the admis sion mus t conclusively conclusively prov prove e the guilt of the the m aker of the admis sio n. For exampl exampl e, in the the case of Veera Ibrahi Ibrahim m vs State of Mahara shtra, AIR AIR 1976 , a person b eing pros ecuted under Customs Act told told the customs off officer icer that he did not know that the the goods loaded in hi s truck were contraband nor were they loaded with his permis sio n. SC held that the the s tat tatemen emen t was not a confess ion but it did am ount to admis sio n of an incriminating fact that that the truck truck was loaded with contraband contraband m aterial. Thus, a statement which m ay not amount to confession ma y still be relevant as adm iss ion. Only a voluntary voluntary and direct acknowledgm ent of guilt is confess ion, but when a confess ion fall short of actual actual admis sion of guilt, it may nevertheless nevertheless b e used as ev evidence idence under Section 21. Regarding adm iss ion that contains contains m ultiple sentences, Justice Thomas , of SC stated the the law in the case of Lo Lokema keman n Shah vs State of WB, AIR 2001  as foll follows ows The test of discerning whether a statement recorded by a judicial m agistrate under Section Section 164 of CrPC, is confess ional or  not is not to determine it by dissecting the statement into different different sentences and then to pick out som e as not inculpative.T inculpativ e.The he statement mu st be read as a wh ole and then only the court shou ld decide whether it contains contains adm iss ions o f  his inculpatory inv involv olvem em ent in the offence. If If the result of that test is positive the the statement is confession al otherwis e not.

Classification of Confessions www.hanumant.com/LOE- U ni t4- Confession.html

1/3

3/23/13

Confession, Judicial and Extra Judicial, admissibility

 A confes si on may occur in any form. It may be made to the court itself, or to anybody outside the court. In this m anner, a confessi on m ay be divided into two categories - Judicial Confess ion and Extra-judicial Confes sio n. Judicial Confession - A judicial confess ion is a confession that is m ade in front of a magis trate or in a court. It may be mad e in the course of a judicial proceeding. Extra - Judicial Confession - An extra-judicial confess ion is a confess ion that is m ade by the party elsew here than before a ma gistrate or in a court. It is a dmi ss ible in evidence under Section 21 and i t is proved by the witness es w ho had heard the spea ker's words constituting the confessio n.  A confes si on ma even cons is t of conversation with oneself. For exam ple, in case of Sahoo vs State of UP, AIR 1966,  an accused who was charged with murder of his daughter in law with whom he was always quarreling was s een on the day of  the mu rder going ou t of the home saying words to the effect, "I have finis hed her and with he r the daily quarrels.". The statement was held to be a valid confess ion becaus e it is not neces sary for the relevance of a confession that it shoul d communicate to some other person.

Rele vancy of Confessions Confessions when Not Relevant  A confes si on becom es i rrelevant and thus , inadm is si ble, in situations des cribed in the Sections 24, 25, and 26. 1. Section 24 - Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority - Confession made by an accused is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confess ion appears to the court to have been caus ed by inducem ent, threat, or promis e, made by any person in authority and that in the view of the court such in ducement, threat, or  promis e gives reasonable ground to the person that by making the confess ion he woul d gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a tem porary nature in reference to the proceedings agains t him. The following conditions are necess ary to attract the provisi ons of this s ection 1. The confessi on mus t have been made because of inducement, threat, or promis e - A confession s hould be free and voluntary. If it flows from fear or hope, it is inadm iss ible. In deciding whether a particular confessi on is because of  threat, inducement, or promis e, the ques tion has to be cons idered from the point of view of the accused as to how the inducement, threat or promis e would ope rate in his m ind. For exam ple, where the accused was told by the magi strate, "tell m e where the things are and I will be favorable to you", it was held to be inadm iss ible. 2. The inducement, threat, or promis e, mus t be made by a person in authority - A person in authority is n ot merely a police officer or a m agis trate but every such person who can reasonabl y hold a s way over the investigation or trial. Thus, government officials such as a s enior m ilitary officer, police constable, warden, clerk of the court, all have been held to be a pers on in authority. Even private persons such as the wife of the em ployer was also held to be a pers on in authority. 3. It shoul d relate to the charge in ques tion - This requirement is specifically stated in the s ection, which s ays that the inducement m ust have "reference to the charge agains t the accused perso n". Thus, in the case of Em press vs Mohan Lal, 1881, the confess ion by a person who was threatened to be removed from his caste for life, was held to be relevant because the threat did not have anything to do w ith the charge. The pos ition in Englis h law is not sam e. In fact, J ATKINSON has said that this rule is illogical and unreasonab le. For exampl e, a daughter is accused of  shopli fting and later on her mother is als o accused of the same o ffence. Now, if the mother is induced to confess by saying that if she confesses to the charge, proceedings aga inst her daughter will be dropped, this w ill m ost like lead to an untrue confess ion. Yet, it would be valid under this section. 4. It shoul d hold out som e material, worldly, or temporal ben efit or advantage - The inducem ent should be about so me tangible benefit. For exam ple, a reference to s piritual benefit such as , taking an a ccused to a tem ple to confess does not fall in this category but a prom ise to reduce the sentence would fall und er it. It is neces sary that all the conditions m ust exist cumul atively. Further, this s ection merely requires that if it "appears to the court" that the confess ion was im properly obtained, it become s in admi ss ible i.e. if the circums tances create a probability in the mind o f the court that the confess ion is improperly obtained, it may hold it inadmis sibl e. 2. Confessions to Police - It is presum ed that police holds a po sition of great influence over the actions of the the accused and s o there is a high probability that confessi ons obtained by the police are tainted with threat, or inducem ent. Further, it is im portant to prevent the practice of oppress ion or torture by the police to extract the confess ion. This principle i s espous ed by Sections 25 and 26, which are as follows Section 25 - Confession to police-office r not to be proved -  No confessi on made to a police-officer shal l be proved as agains t a person accuse d of any offence. This s ection is very broadly word. It strictly disa llows any confessi on mad e to the police officer as inadm iss ible no m atter what the circums tances. In the case of Raja Ram vs State of Bihar, AIR 1964 , SC held that the term police-officer is not be be interpreted strictly but mus t be given a m ore comprehens ive and popu lar  me aning. However, these w ords are also not to be construed in so wide s ense as to include a person on whom only som e powers exercised by the police are conferred. The test for determini ng whether s uch a pers on is a police officer, is whether  www.hanumant.com/LOE-Unit4-Confession.html

2/3

3/23/13

Confession, Judicial and Extra Judicial, admissibility

the powers are s uch as would tend to facilitate the obtaining of confessio n by him from a s uspe ct. Thus, a chowkidar, police patel, a village headm an, an excise officer, are all cons idered to be police officer. Section 26 - Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him -  No confession made by any person whils t he is in the custody of a police-officer, unles s it be mad e in the imm ediate presence of a Magistrate, shal l be proved as agains t such person. This s ection further tries to ens ure that the confess ion is not extracted due to the influence of the police. Any confessio n m ade while the m aker is in custody of the police is invalid unles s i t is m ade in the im med iate presence of a m agistrate. The presence of a m agis trate is , by a legal fiction, regarded as equivalent to removal of  police influence and the statement is therefore considered to be free from police influence. Mere absence of the police officer from a room where confess ion is taken does not terminate his custody of the accused. The word custody does not just me an formal cus tody but includes s uch state of affairs in which the accused can be sai d to have come into the hands of a police officer or can be sai d to have been un der som e s ort of surveillance or res triction. Section 27 provides another exception when a confess ion mad e to the police is admi ss ible. This is when a confessio n leads to the discovery of a fact connected with the crim e. The discovery assures that the confess ion is true and reliable even if it was extorted. In order to ens ure the genuinenes s of recoveries, it has become a practice to effect the recoveries in the presence of witnesses. Cons titutionality of Section 27 - Indian Evidence Act was written before the Cons titution of India and Article 20(3) of the constitution says that no person s hall be compell ed to be a witness agains t hims elf. This article seemi ngly mad e Section 27 unconstitutional. SC considered this iss ue in the case of Nisa Sre e vs State of Orissa AIR 1954,  and held that it is not violative of Article 20(3). A confes si on m ay or may not lead to the dis covery of an increm inating fact. If the dis covered fact is non incrim inatory, there is no is sue a nd if it is s elf-incriminatory, it is adm iss ible if the information is gi ven by the accused without any threat. Confessions when Relevant The following three types of confess ion are relevant and adm iss ible 1. Section 27 - Confession leading to a discovery - Explained above. 2. Section 28 - Confessions made after removal of threat - If the confess ion is obtained after the impres sion caus ed by threat, inducement, or promis e is rem oved in the opinion of the court, then the confessi on is a dmi ss ible. 3. Section 29 - Confession made under promise, deception,etc. - If a confess ion is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made (a) under a promis e of secrecy or  (b) in consequences of a deception practiced on the accused pers on for the purpos e of obtaining it or  (c) while the accused was drunk or  (d) while answ ering the questions he need n ot have answ ered or  (e) when the accused was not warned that he was not bound to ma ke such confess ion and that evidence of it might be given against him. The basi s of this s ection is that any breach of confidence or of good faith or practice of any artifice does not invalidate a confessi on. However, a confess ion obtained by mere trickery does not carry much weight. For examp le, in one case, an accused was told that som ebody saw him doing the crim e and because of this the accused m ade a confession. The court held the confession as inadmiss ible. In Rex vs Shaw, A was accused of a murder and B, a fellow pris oner, asked him ab out how he did he do the m urder. A sai d, "Will you be upon your oath not to m ention what I tell you?", to which B prom is ed on his oath that he will not tell anybody. A then made a s tateme nt. It was held that it was n ot such an inducemen t that would render  the confess ion inadmiss ible. The five circums tances m entioned in the s ection are not exhaustive.

www.hanumant.com/LOE-Unit4-Confession.html

3/3