Open Access Research Article
CONFESSIONS UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: AN ANALYSIS OF PRECEDENT BY MR. AMRIT PAL SINGH & MR. KARAN DEEP SINGH
Published Paper
Article Details
“CONFESSIONS”
UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: AN ANALYSIS OF PRECEDENT
AUTHORERD BY: MR. AMRIT PAL SINGH,
Advocate, Delhi High Court
Email: Amritpal515@gmail.com
CO-AUTOR - MR. KARAN DEEP SINGH,
5th Year Law Student,
Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
Email: Karan.simak29@gmail.com
Abstract:
The
admissibility of confessions in the Indian legal landscape is a matter of
paramount significance, profoundly influencing the outcomes of criminal trials.
This research paper, titled "Confessions" under the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872: An Analysis of Precedent, undertakes an extensive examination of the
legal provisions and precedents governing confessions in India. Delving into
the historical and legal framework provided by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
this study scrutinises the conditions under which confessions are deemed
admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings. It seeks to unravel the
delicate equilibrium between the constitutional principles of fairness and the
imperative to establish truth and justice within the criminal justice system.
In summary,
by synthesising the legislative provisions and case laws, this research paper
offers a comprehensive understanding of the intricate legal landscape
surrounding confessions in India. It aims to contribute to the ongoing
discourse on safeguarding the rights of the accused persons while upholding the
principles of justice and accountability. This analysis serves as a valuable
resource for legal practitioners, scholars, students and academicians working
towards the preservation of a fair, equitable, and constitutionally aligned
criminal justice system in India.
Introduction:
The term
‘confessions’ denoted from the Latin term “Confiteri”[1].
During the course of a criminal trial, the confessions play a significant role
as it is constructed on basic foundation of accuracy and truth. In common
parlance, the accused by confessing is performing an act of making an
incriminating statement to the police or magistrate implicating themselves to
the alleged crime. When the accused persons make confessions voluntarily, then
they are considered a substantial evidence during the court of trial, whereas
some can be involuntary in nature.
According
to Sir James Stephen “A confession is an admission made by a person charged
with a crime at any time, stating or implying that he committed the crime”[2].
Nevertheless, the Privy Council did not accept the abovementioned statement and
Lord Atkin held that no statements indicating any self-incriminating material could
be a confession and a person must either admit the commission of an offence or at
the minimum, admit the substantial facts leading to commission of alleged
offence[3],
in order to be considered a statement as a confession. This same jurisprudence
has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ajay
Singh vs State of Maharashtra[4],
wherein the Apex Court held that the confessions shall be construed as
statements made by accused persons which admits the commission of an offence by
such accused or the commission of substantial facts which constitutes the
offence.
In legal
practice, the confessions is ordinarily an admissible evidence and relevant
fact which can be acted upon the by the court. Confessions varying from case to
case and circumstances and the law laid by constitutional court shall determine
the evidentiary value of confessions for the conviction of the accused persons.
The Trial court during the course of trial, shall satisfy itself regarding the
confession of the accused in terms of the voluntariness and truthfulness of the
confessions, and corroboration of the same.[5]
Generally,
confessions can be classified into two part as judicial and extra-judicial
confessions. Judicial confessions are regarded as confessions made by the
accused persons before the Magistrate or in court during the course of judicial
proceedings. Whereas, the extra-judicial confessions are regarded as the
confessions made by the accused persons anywhere else other than the Magistrate
or any court.[6]
Confessions
under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The term
confessions has nowhere been expressly defined under the Indian legislation,
namely the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) but confessions can be construed
as any statements made by the accused person/s himself or herself which prove
his or her own guilt. The legal practice in criminal law denotes the admissions
to be presumed as confessions made by the accused person/s. The Section 17 read
with Sections 19 and 20 of the Act defines admissions as any statements made by
any person in the form of written, oral or electronic mode in order to derive
or consider any relevant facts.
The
substantive law is provided from Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act while
the procedural aspect of law is present in Sections 163, 164, 333 and 364
Cr.P.C., 1973.
Analysis:
The
definitions of both confessions and admissions ought to be similar but there
exists a distinction between the two, such as the confession is the admission made
by accused persons of their own guilt whereas, the admissions can be of various
kinds provided by any person or the accused persons. In order for statements to
be considered as confession, the accused person making such statements must
either admit the commission of those acts which terms an offence or substantially
the facts constituting the offence.[7]
The
confession is not a conclusive proof of guilt of the accused persons. As per
Section 31 of the Act, the admission is not a conclusive proof, thus, the
confession is also not a conclusive proof, therefore confession can be
rebutted. The confessions are considered as a strong piece of evidence which
have high evidentiary value but their evidentiary value is not as high as dying
declaration.
In the
matter of Nageen Dad Ram Das vs Dalpatram Icharam[8],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India provided the effects of an admission made by
the accused person as to be normally true and the best proof to prove any
relevant fact or fact-in-issue by admission to establish facts.
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India observed that if an unambiguous confession is admitted
into evidence which is free of suspicion, then it will be crucial piece of
evidence which has high probative force.[9]
As per
Section 24, confessions being a kind of admissions under special circumstances
be treated as irrelevant confessions which are made by the accused person under
some kind of threat, influence, inducement or any kind of promise to the
accused person. The statements made or communicated by the accused person which
admits the guilt of an offence shall be deemed to be confession of guilt. The
probative value of confession is depended upon the confession to another, the
same can be admitted in evidence only if proved by the prosecution. The proof
in situation of admission and confession shall be provided by the witnesses who
heard the admission or confession.[10]
It is
pertinent to mention that Section 28 provides for when the confessions made
under Section 24 become relevant, when such threats or inducements or promise
has been completely removed and the accused person is free to make the
confession.
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held that the Chapter III of the Constitution of India
provides for the Fundamental Rights which ensures no accused persons will be forced
to give confessions which are self-incriminating against the maker. As per
Article 20(3), no accused persons shall be compelled to be a witness against
their own self.[11]
It was
observed that confessions by accused person may not necessarily be true and
voluntary in nature, a confession which could be true but involuntary[12].
Once the confessions are involuntary and rejected by the Court, their truth and
value for conviction need not to be considered.[13]
Section 25
provides that the confessions made by the accused person to any police officer
or investigating officer shall be inadmissible and not proved during trial
before the court. The scope is limited to those confessions which are made
before the police officer and not in its custody. Any incriminating statement
is admissible against the accused person only if it does not amount to
confessions made by the accused[14].
In the matter of Raj Kumar Karwall vs Union of India[15],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that for the purposes of Section 25, the police
officer is an authority who has the power to investigate the case and file
police report. Section 25 is applicable to the confessions made before
investigations have begun before the Police but nor during the course of the
investigation.
The Section
25 acts as a bar against the admissibility of confessions made to the police
officer even those officers who have the power investigate, arrest, and file
police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Thereby, the officers under Section 53
of NDPS Act are police officers and fall within the meaning of Section 25, Indian
Evidence Act for the purposes of recording confessions of the accused persons.[16]
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India observed the admissibility of confessions made by the
accused persons to the police officers as the general rule under Section 25 is
that any confession made to police officer shall be inadmissible and not proved
against the maker. Such a confession may still be used as an admission under
Section 21 of The Act subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 162
Cr.P.C and if it fulfils the test laid down by the Pakala Narayana Swami[17].
Despite that a statement containing only admission and not confession regarding
an offence shall be relevant only if made before the investigation commences by
the police officer.[18]
Section 26 bars
any confessions made by an accused person in police custody even if made in
presence of police officer or doctor. If a confession is made in police custody
before the Magistrate in the same room, only then such a confession becomes
admissible. In the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh vs Gangula Satya
Murthy[19],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the bar of Section 26 does not
applies to extra-judicial confessions.
Section 27
of the Evidence Act provides for the types of statement needs to be proved
which are provided by the accused persons. It is based upon the theory of
confirmation by the subsequent finding of fact. In the matter of State of
Uttar Pradesh vs Deoman Upadhyay[20],
the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that
the Section 27 is a proviso to Section 24, 25 and 26. Since Section 27 is a
proviso, the rule of interpretations provides that it should be given strict
interpretation and only has to be read with the provision as it has been
expressly provided. The essential elements are that the information provided by
the accused persons shall lead to discovery of fact which is directly reached
by the said information; the relevant portion which is directly connected with
above discovery shall be against the accused; and the discovery of fact must
provide for the commission of an offence.[21]
Types of
Confession:
First, Judicial
confessions are those confessions which are made before a judicial
magistrate during investigation under Section 164 Cr.P.C. These confessions
needs to be properly written and recorded by the Magistrate. Judicial
confessions are admissible as evidence, relevant fact and used to convict the
accused, if only provided that he or she made it with the utmost truthfulness
and voluntary nature without any threat or inducement, and the truth is considered
with respect to the case of prosecution.[22]
In the
landmark judgement of State of NCT of Delhi vs Navjot Sandhu[23],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that confessions are highly reliable as it
could convict the accused person and a rational person would not make
statements which wherein he self-incriminates himself or herself, prior to
convicting the accused, the trial court must verify that the confession was
voluntarily and truthfully before the Magistrate.
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India affirmed that in cases of judicial confessions, the
prosecution merely needs to prove that the confession is recorded by a
magistrate and court shall raise the presumption of genuineness and record of
confessions can be rebutted by the defence; unless the confession is not
rebutted, then it shall be deemed to be proved. In the case of extra-judicial
confession, the prosecution will be produce the confession and has the burden
of proof to prove. Therefore, the presumption of genuineness is present in the
case of judicial confessions only but not in extra-confessions.[24]
Second, the
Extra-Judicial confessions could be oral or written statements as
documentary evidence made as confessions to any private persons, executive
magistrate, etc. and not to a Judicial Magistrate. Such confessions can be made
either before or after the stage of investigation or trial. The person to whom
the confession was made, must be able to prove it.
Earlier,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the extra-judicial confessions
appeared to have been treated as a weaker piece of evidence during the course
of trial, but there has been neither the rule of law nor rule of prudence which
expressly provides that the extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon
unless corroborated.[25]
The trial
court or any court shall not have to begin with a presumption that the
extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence. The credibility of extra-judicial
evidence will depend upon the nature, circumstances and time in which such
confessions are made along with the credibility of the witnesses who are
deposing about such extra-judicial confession[26].
In the matter of State of
Rajasthan vs Raja Rama[27],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the trial courts have the discretion to
rely upon the extra-judicial confession, if the accused person made such
confession in a voluntarily manner and his/her fit mental state of mind. Though,
the evidentiary value of such evidence primarily relies upon the person who
makes such confessions. The trial courts are not appropriate to try the cases
with the presumption that extra-judicial evidence has weak evidentiary value
during the course of trial.
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India opined that the evidentiary value of extra-judicial
confessions shall be adjudicated considering the facts and circumstances of the
case. The facts of the matter at hand would not be the only determining factor
as the court shall look into the time and circumstances of the accused during
making such confession along with the credibility and veracity of the witness
testifying to the confessions.[28]
Recently,
in the matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs State of Bihar[29],
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that the at the beginning, the
extra-judicial confessions are considered to be weak piece of evidence, though
must be sustained only if provided that the extra-confession was made
voluntarily. The evidentiary value of the extra-judicial confessions shall also
depend upon the accused persons who made such confession. Once the Court is
satisfied with the reliability pf the confessions made by the accused while the
circumstances in which he/she made it, then no further corroboration of the
same is required with other evidences, but if corroborated, then it shall
acquire more credibility and evidentiary value.
Confessions
made by the Co-accused Persons
Section 30
of the Act provides for confessions made by co-accused persons which includes
both judicial and extra-judicial confessions. Section 30 envisages that if more
than one persons are being tried for the same offence and any one of accused
persons made a confession, then the maker of such confession gets affected by same and it substantially stands to be
proved. Then then court can consider that such a confession affecting against
other accused persons as well as the maker. The same was upheld in the case of Government
of NCT of Delhi vs Jaspal Singh[30].
The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kashmira Singh vs State Of Madhya
Pradesh[31],
reaffirmed that the confessions against co-accused persons in ordinary
proceedings shall not have strong evidentiary value and trial courts ought not
to consider such confessions as substantial piece of evidence but such
confessions as evidence can be used for corroboration of other pieces of evidence
in the course of trial.
The
statement which is confessional in nature shall be only relevant when the
author making such confession is one of the accused persons or the accused
person himself/herself in the matter wherein the accused person is being tried
before the trial court. If a person is not a party in the case, then such a
confessional statement by the person will be inadmissible in evidence as
confession.[32]
Conclusion:
In the
present research, the authors make an attempt to highlight the analytical
approach and development of the jurisprudence with respect to the confessions
under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 along with evidentiary value of confessions
in various circumstances in the Judiciary of India. The research paper also
highlights the judicial interpretation of court of law with respect to
confessions as evidence as well as discusses the types of confessions.
The journey
through the historical development of the law pertaining to confessions has
revealed the delicate balance that the judiciary strives to maintain between
protecting the rights of the accused persons as well as ensuring the fair and
fair trial. The nuanced considerations of voluntariness, reliability, and the
circumstances under which confessions are obtained have emerged as pivotal
factors influencing judicial decisions.
The legal
practice is a dynamic and ever-growing study of law, yet there are various
aspects of law which are intertwined while discussing the topic of confessions
from the perspective of procedural and substantive law. As the legal community
grapples with the ever-changing dynamics of criminal law, the insights gleaned
from this analysis can serve as a compass, guiding practitioners and students
in navigating the intricate terrain of confessions within the Indian legal
framework.
Article Information
CONFESSIONS UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872: AN ANALYSIS OF PRECEDENT BY MR. AMRIT PAL SINGH & MR. KARAN DEEP SINGH
Authors: MR. AMRIT PAL SINGH, MR. KARAN DEEP SINGH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/11/16
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.