CONFESSIONS

ADV. USHA ANDEWAR

Part II – Chapter II – Sections 22 to 24

The concept of confession

It refers to acknowledging and admitting one's wrongdoing, typically in a

religious or legal context, intending to seek forgiveness or absolution.

According to the definition provided by Sir James Stephen, a confession can be

understood as a statement made by an individual facing criminal charges,
wherein the content of the speech implies or indicates their culpability. While
the Indian Evidence Act does not provide a specific definition of "confession," it
is possible to apply the explanation provided for "admission" in Section 15 to
confessions. According to Section 15, any remark, regardless of its mode of
expression, whether oral or written or digital, that is put out to substantiate a
conclusion on the facts or pertinent facts is deemed acceptable as evidentiary
material.

It is evident that when a statement is submitted for deliberation in a civil case

about a fact in question or pertinent facts, it is deemed a confession. Confession
refers to the act of an individual accused of a criminal offence making a
statement that indicates culpability or implies a conclusion regarding a fact that
is under consideration or pertinent to the case. An alternative means of
conceptualizing confession is the acknowledgement made by the defendant
during legal processes related to criminal charges.

According to Lord Atkin's ruling in the Pakala Narayan Swami Vs. Emperor, the
admissibility of a confession is contingent upon its connection to the offence or
significant facts on the offence.

1|Page
The Supreme Court, in the matter of Palvinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, affirmed
the ruling rendered in the case of Pakala Narayan Swami. The authors stated
that a confession should only be deemed valid if it acknowledges culpability for
a transgression or if the admission corroborates all pertinent details. Moreover,
a statement with confessional and exculpatory features cannot be deemed a
genuine confession.

In the legal matter of Nishi Kant Jha Vs. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court
underscored the acceptability of selectively utilising a segment of the defendant's
statement while disregarding other portions. The origin of this concept can be
traced back to English Law, where the Court, upon perceiving sufficient
evidence, may choose to disregard the exculpatory portion of a confession and
instead rely on the inculpatory portion.

In summary, a confession can be defined as any remark made by a defendant

that serves as evidence of their culpability. In the Indian Evidence Act,
"admission" and "confession" are employed interchangeably, leading to the
acknowledgement of culpability. Nevertheless, a subtle distinction exists
between the two concepts, as confessions are regarded as a more substantial
form of acknowledgement enhancement. A commonly held assertion is, "Every
confession constitutes an admission, but not every admission qualifies as a
confession."

In the legal matter of Baburao Bajirao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Court
elucidated that before ascertaining a case's factual circumstances, the Court
must scrutinise all other pertinent material on the said case thoroughly. In
order to ensure the complete administration of justice in assessing the guilt of
the accused, it is imperative for the Court to thoroughly evaluate all available
evidence prior to considering the confession made by the accused.

2|Page
Confessions under TADA, POTA and now UAPA

DEPARTURE FROM THE GENERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE-

POTA makes a departure from the general rule of evidence as u/s 32 the
confessions made to a high ranking police officer can be used as evidence against
the maker whereas the general rule of evidence is that confessions made to a
police officer or in police custody are not to be used as evidence against the
maker.

SECTION 32 OF POTA IS ON SIMILAR LINES OF SECTION 15 OF TADA –

Rule as regard to confession in embodied u/s 32 of POTA and it is not much
different from section 15 of TADA which is the parent Act of POTA.

But no direct mention of confession in UAPA (THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES

(PREVENTION) ACT)

Confession under MOCA

Section 18(1) MCOCA stipulates that―a confession made by a person before a
police officer, not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police, shall be
admissible subject to other statutory stipulations.

Section 50 of the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) discusses

authorities' capacity to call people and documents, as well as their ability to take
evidence. The aforementioned clause empowers the investigating officer to call
any person and record his confession. The individual who has been served with
a section 50 summons is required to follow them; otherwise, they would be
defying a public servant's mandate. Furthermore, the character of proceedings
under section 50 is judicial, as evidence is taken under oath.

THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985

The NDPS Act is another piece of special law designed to combat the organised
crime of drug misuse and distribution. Even the NDPS contains a provision
3|Page
comparable to Section 50 of the PMLA, which allows authorised authorities to
request information and summon witnesses to testify. The issue of admissibility
of confessional remarks is extremely ancient. Beginning with the case
of Kanhaiyalal Vs. Union Of India (2013), the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded that
officials under the NDPS Act are not police officers, and hence the protection of
section 24-26 of the IEA would not apply to proceedings under the NDPS Act.

The court decided in Mohammad Fasrin Vs. State (2019) that, while the
statements were recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the accused must
have submitted the statement of their own initiative and after comprehending
the implications. The debate over whether officers under the NDPS Act are police
officers or not has been resolved in Tofan Singh V. State Tamil Nadu, (2021)32 ,
in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled that officers under the NDPS Act are
police officers, and confessions recorded or made before them are inadmissible
as evidence.

4|Page
Introduction

Confession is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence in criminal law. It is

essentially an acknowledgment or admission made by an accused person, stating
that he committed the offence with which he is charged.

Confessions can be a vital component of criminal trials, often being the

proverbial “smoking gun” that proves a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. However, the use of confessions in the legal system must be carefully
regulated to ensure fairness and the protection of individual rights.

In civil cases, a relevant statement is considered an admission, while in criminal

cases, a relevant statement is regarded as a confession.

The term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined or expressed in the Adhiniyam. Section

15 expressly provides that any statement whether oral or in the form of
documentary or contained in electronic form, which put forward for the
consideration of any conclusion to the fact in issue or to the relevant facts is
“Admission”. The statements may infer any reasoning for concluding or
suggesting that he is guilty of a crime. Thus, Confession in other words can be
defined as “admission by the accused in the criminal proceedings is
a confession”. Sections 22, 23 and 24 deal with confessions. However, the
Adhiniyam does not define a confession but includes in its admissions of which
it is a species. Thus, confessions are a special form of admission. Whereas every
confession must be an admission but every admission may not amount to a
confession.

A confession is relevant as an admission unless it is made :-

(a) To a person in authority in consequence of some inducement, threat or

promise held out by him in reference to the charge against the accused.
(b) To a Police Officer;

5|Page
(c) To anyone at a time when the accused is in the custody of a Police Officer
and no Magistrate is present.

Thus, a statement made by an accused person if it is an admission, is admissible

in evidence. The confession is a piece of evidence only against its maker and
against another person who is being jointly tried with him for an offence. The
confession made in front of a magistrate in a native state recorded is admissible
against its maker and is also admissible against co-accused under Section 24.

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 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”.
This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court
against A, as B is not being jointly tried.

Confession under the Adhiniyam

In India, the rules and regulations governing the admissibility and use of
confessions are provided by the Adhiniyam. It sets the standards for what
constitutes a valid confession, the circumstances under which confessions are
admissible, and the consequences of a confession.
Confession is a statement made by an accused person which, “admits any fact
in issue or relevant fact, and that statement will be admissible in evidence
against him.”

This underscores the crucial element of an admission by the accused regarding

a fact that is relevant to the case. In other words, a confession is an
acknowledgment of the accused’s involvement in the alleged criminal activity.

6|Page
In the case of Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L. Dani, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India addressed the issue of the voluntariness of a confession. The court
emphasized the importance of a free and voluntary confession. It ruled that if a
confession is found to be involuntary, it cannot be admitted as evidence.

Admissibility of Confession under the Adhiniyam

The admissibility of confessions in court is a matter of paramount importance.

Confessions, as vital pieces of evidence, can significantly impact the outcome of
a case. Therefore, the Adhiniyam lays down specific rules concerning the
admissibility of confessions.

TYPES OF CONFESSION AND PROCESS OF RECORDING CONFESSIONS

1. Judicial or Formal Confession – Formal confession is also known as

Judicial Confession, and it refers to claims made before a judge or in a
court of law during a criminal proceeding. A judicial confession is nothing
more than a “plea of guilty” as specified by Article 20 (3) of the Indian
Constitution; otherwise, any confession made against the person making
the confession has no evidentiary value, and he cannot be found guilty of
any crime on the basis of such confession.

Since section 183 of BNSS empowers magistrates to record confessions, it

is not important to know which magistrate recorded the confession unless
he is prohibited from doing so. As a result, in order to raise the
presumption, the accused’s identity must be clear and proven in the
confession in order to persecute him for the crime he committed.

2. Extrajudicial or Informal Confession – Informal or Extrajudicial

confession refers to claims made outside of a court or in the absence of a
judge. Informal confession can be made in the form of prayer, in any
private space, or in a self-conversation. However, the court must ensure
7|Page
 that the accused’s confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, is
consistent with Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution, which states that
““No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself” – Self incrimination. This means that the confession must
be made freely and truthfully, and only then may a person be charged with
a crime. Extrajudicial confession occurs when a person confesses his guilt
of the crime he committed to a private person, such as a friend or a family
member.

In, Sahadevan Vs. 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. The following principles mentioned by the Supreme Court are :-

❖ Extrajudicial confessions are typically a very poor type of evidence

on their own, and the court must thoroughly scrutinize such claims.
❖ Extrajudicial confessions should be made with one’s own free will
and must be truthful.
❖ When extrajudicial confessions are backed up with other facts, their
evidentiary value skyrockets.
❖ The statements of the confessor must prove his guilt like any other
fact in issue is proven in the judicial proceedings.

3. Retracted Confession – The concept of retraction in English is “the action

of drawing back something.” Retraction confession is a form of confession
in which the confessor makes a voluntary confession then reversed or
retracted by the same confessor. If it is substantiated by other
independent and corroborative facts, a retracted confession may be used
against the individual who is confessing any retracted statements.

8|Page
4. Confession by Co-accused – 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.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pancho Vs. State of Haryana
2011 AIR, held that the confession of co-accused has no evidentiary value
and cannot be regarded as a substantial piece of evidence. As a result, the
co-accused’s confession can only be used to bolster the inference reached
based on other facts.

Section 22 (1) – Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or

promise

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding,

if certain conditions are satisfied. The conditions are as follows:
(1) 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;
(2) The inducement, threat or promise proceeds from a person in authority;
and

9|Page
(3) The court is of the opinion that the inducement, threat or promise is
sufficient to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him
reasonable for supposing that he would gain an advantage or avoid any
evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

Conditions
First condition deals with subject matter of the inducement, threat or promise.
It must have reference to the charge. The crucial word in this ingredient is the
expression "appears". The appropriate meaning of the word "appears" is "seems".
It imports a lesser degree of probability than proof. Even so, the laxity of proof
permitted does not warrant a court's opinion based on pure inference. A prima
facie opinion based on evidence and circumstances may be adopted as the
standard laid down. This deviation from the normal standard of proof has been
designedly accepted by the Legislature with a view to excluding forced or induced
confessions which sometimes are extorted and put in when there is a lack of
direct evidence.

Secondly, the threat, inducement or promise must proceed from a person in

authority. It is a question of fact in each case whether the person concerned is a
person of authority or not.

Thirdly, the mere existence of the threat, inducement or promise is not enough,
but, in the opinion of the court, the threat, inducement or promise should be
sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the mind of the accused that by
confessing he would get an advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in
reference to the proceedings against him: while the opinion is that of the Court,
the criterion is the reasonable belief of the accused.

Burden of proof u/s.22 (1)

The terms in which section 22 (1) is couched, seem to indicate that in the case
of an ordinary confession, there is no initial burden on the prosecution to make
out the negative, viz., that the confession sought to be proved or admitted is no

10 | P a g e
vitiated by the circumstances stated in the section. However, where the suspicion
of the Court is aroused, the standard of proof required to render it irrelevant is
indicated by the word "appears" and not by the usual word "proved". Subject to
this, the burden of proving that the confession is involuntary is on the accused,
though the burden is light.

Inducement having reference to charge

One of the conditions of the applicability of section 22 (1) is that the inducement,
threat or promise should persuade the accused that he would gain an advantage
or avoid any evil in "reference to the proceeding against him." If pressure is put
upon an accused person which affects his freedom of will, such pressure is a
ground for making the confession inadmissible even where the threat is of harm
otherwise than in relation to the proceeding.

Section 22 proviso – Confession Made After Removal Of Impression Caused

By Inducement, Threat Or Promise, Relevant
If such a confession as is referred to in section 22 (1) is made after the impression
caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the
court, been fully removed, it is relevant.

The impression produced by promise or threat may be removed ;

❖ By lapse of time, or
❖ By an intervening caution given by some person of superior authority
to the person holding out the inducement, where a prisoner confessed
some months after the promise and after the warning his confession was
received.

CONFESSION ON PROMISE OF SECRECY, ETC. The proviso to section 22 lays

down that if a confession is relevant, i.e. if it is not excluded from being proved
by any other provision of the Adhiniyam, it does not become irrelevant if it was
taken from the accused by ;

11 | P a g e
1. Giving him the promise of secrecy, or
2. By deceiving him, or
3. When he was drunk, or
4. Because it was made clear in answer to question which he need not have
answered, or because no warning was given that he was not bound to
say anything and that whatever will state will be used against him.

1. The Promise of Secrecy - The confession will not become inadmissible

obtained from the accused by a promise of secrecy. The accused made
their confession to a commissioned officer of the regiment who stated to
the accused that he had already obtained information from another
person. He promised of secrecy if they told him truth. It was held that the
alleged deceptions inducement were covered by the provisions of the Act.

2. Deception - The confession obtained by deception if otherwise admissible

does not make it irrelevant. Where a prisoner in jails on charge of felony
asked the jailor of the jail, to put the letter into the post for him. After
promising to do so, the prisoner gave him a letter and the jailor instead of
putting the letter into the post, gave it to be prosecutor. It was held that
the contents of the letter were admissible in evidence against the prisoner.
Where a confession has been obtained by artifice deception but without
any use of promise or threats is admissible where the confession is
obtained from an person by false representation made to deception
practiced upon him, it will not be inadmissible evidence. A confession is
not excluded because of any illegality in the method of obtaining it or in
the speaker’s situation at the time of making it. The general principle is
the illegality of the source of evidence is no bar to its receptor.

3. Drunkenness - Confession made in state of intoxication are governed by

general principle of testimonial capacity that is capacity of observation,
capacity of recollection, capacity of intelligence and truthful narration etc,

12 | P a g e
 Therefore are usually admissible. It is only where intoxication is produced
by a person desirous of obtaining a confession that its trust worthless
becomes really doubtful. So to of the confessions during sleep or hypnotic
influence.

4. Want of caution - A voluntary confession is inadmissible though it does

not appear that he was no so warned. In some cases section 164 is not
complied with the confession admissible. In other words, a confession
otherwise admissible does not become inadmissible merely because the
accused was not bound to make confession.

Case Laws :
In the case of Palvinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab 1952 AIR 354, the Supreme
Court approved the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case over
two scores. To begin with, confession is described as either admitting guilt in
terms or admitting substantially all of the facts that constitute the offence.
Second, a jumbled statement, even though it includes some confessional
statements, would always result in acquittal, is not a confession. As a result, a
statement containing self-exculpatory information that, if valid, would negate the
issue or offence, cannot amount to confession.

In, State of Punjab Vs. Bhagwan Singh 1992 AIR 1689 the Supreme Court in
this case held that the validity of an extrajudicial confession increases only if it
is clearly compatible and persuasive with the case’s conclusion; otherwise, the
accused cannot be held responsible for his guilt solely on the grounds of his
confession.

In Pyare Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan 1963 AIR 1094, the Supreme Court, In
this case, the Court determined that a withdrawn confession has sufficient
validity to provide all other legal basis for conviction only if the Court is satisfied
that it was valid and made of someone’s own volition. However, the Court must
13 | P a g e
testify that convictions cannot be based solely on confessions unless and unless
they are corroborated.

Section 23 (1) - Confessions to Police Officers Not Admissible

Confessions made to police officers are not admissible in court. The primary
rationale behind this rule is to safeguard against the potential for coercion,
duress, or abuse that an accused person might face when dealing with law
enforcement. This section creates an absolute bar against the admission of such
confessions.

This rule serves a critical purpose in the Indian criminal justice system. It helps
protect the rights of accused individuals by ensuring that they are not compelled
to confess to a crime under undue pressure or intimidation from the police.

It is worth noting that Section 23 (1) applies not only to confessions made during
police custody but also to any statements given to a police officer during the
course of an investigation, irrespective of where they are made.

In the case of State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India examined the admissibility of a confession obtained by the police.
The court held that a confession made to the police is inadmissible and explained
that confessions made to the police are more likely to be tainted by fear or
intimidation.

History of section 23 (1)

It would be useful to deal with the history of the section having regard to its
importance. The following extract from the First Report of the Indian Law
Commission is of interest, in this connection ;

"The police in the Province of Bengal are armed with very extensive powers. They
are prohibited from inquiring into cases of a petty nature, but complaints in
cases of more serious offences are usually laid before the police darogah, who is
14 | P a g e
authorised to examine the complainant, to issue process of arrests; to summon
witnesses, to examine the accused and to forward the case to the Magistrate or
submit a report of his proceedings, according as the evidence may, in his
judgment, warrant the one or the other course.

The evidence taken by the Parliamentary Committees on Indian Affairs, during

the Sessions of 1852 and 1853 and other papers, which have been brought to
our notice, abundantly show that the powers of the Police are often abused for
purposes of extortion and oppression; and we have considered whether the
powers now exercised by the police might not be greatly abridged. We have
arrived at the conclusion that, considering the extensive jurisdiction of the
Magistrate, the facilities which exist for the escape of the parties concerned in
serious crimes, and the necessity for the immediate adoption in many cases of
the most prompt and energetic measures, it is requisite to arm the police with
some such powers as they now possess; and we have accordingly adopted many
of the provisions in the Bengal Code on this head.

In one material point, we propose a change in the duties of the Police. By the
existing law, the darogah or other police officer presiding at any inquiry into a
crime committed within his division is required, upon apprehension of the
accused, to "question him fully regarding the whole of the circumstances of the
case and the persons concerned in the commission of the crime and if any
property may have been stolen or plundered, the person in possession of such
property, or the place where it has been deposited. In the event of the accused
making free and voluntary confession, it is to be immediately written down."

Then follow other provisions for preventing any species of compulsion or

maltreatment with a view to extort a confession or procure information. But we
are informed, and this information is corroborated by the evidence we have
examined, that, inspite of this qualification, confessions are frequently extorted
or fabricated. A police officer, on receiving intimation of the occurrence of a
dacoity or other offence of a serious character, failing to discover the perpetrators
15 | P a g e
of the offence, often endeavours to secure himself against any charge of
supineness or neglect by getting up a case against parties whose circumstances
or characters are such as are likely to obtain credit for an accusation of the kind
against them.

This is not infrequently done by extorting or fabricating false confession; and,

when this step is once taken, there is of course impunity for real offenders, and
a great encouragement to crime. The darogah is henceforth committed to the
direction he has given to the case; and it is his object to prevent a discovery of
the truth, and the apprehension of the guilty parties, who, as far as the police
are concerned, are now perfectly safe.

We are persuaded that any provision to correct the exercise of this power by the
police will be futile; and we accordingly propose to remedy the evil, as far as
possible, by the adoption of a rule prohibiting any examination whatever of any
accused party by the police, the result of which is to constitute a written
document. This, of course, will not prevent a police officer from receiving any
information which any one may voluntarily offer to him; "but the police will not
be permitted to put upon record any statement made by a party accused of an
offence."

Section 23 (2) – Confessions to Magistrates Admissible

In contrast to the general inadmissibility of confessions to police officers, Section

23 (2) of the Adhiniyam allows confessions made to a magistrate to be admissible
in court. This section provides that 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. The Explanation to the
section, provides that "Magistrate" does not include the head of a village
discharging magisterial functions, unless such headman is a Magistrate
exercising the powers of a Magistrate, under BNSS.

16 | P a g e
However, it sets out specific conditions that must be met for such confessions to
be admissible :-

❖ Confession Must Be Made to a Magistrate

The confession should be made before a magistrate and in the presence of
a magistrate. This is a fundamental requirement, as the magistrate’s role
is seen as a safeguard against coercion and intimidation.

❖ Adequate Caution and Advisement

The magistrate must also exercise caution and deliberation. This involves
making the accused aware of their legal rights and the consequences of
making a confession. The accused person should be fully aware of the
implications of their confession. This deliberation process further
contributes to ensuring the voluntariness of the confession.

❖ Voluntariness of Confession
The core criterion for the admissibility of any confession, whether made to
a magistrate or not, is its voluntariness. This means that a confession
must be given freely and without any undue influence, inducement, threat,
or promise.

The Adhiniyam clearly specifies that a confession is admissible if it is voluntary.

It is essential to determine whether the confession was made by the accused of
his own free will or if it was extracted through pressure or improper influence. If
a confession is found to be coerced or made under duress, it is inadmissible.

The onus of proving the voluntariness of a confession rests on the prosecution.

In other words, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to demonstrate that the
confession was made voluntarily.

17 | P a g e
Section 23 (2) – Confession in further discovery of facts

Section 23 (2) Proviso clause lifts the concept of the relevance of information
received from the accused by irrelevant confess made to police or in police
custody which may help in further discovery of facts of the cases. This proviso
clause provides that whenever a fact is forcefully discovered in the course of
receiving information from accused during a police investigation or in the police
custody and whenever such information leads to the discovery of other relevant
facts they may be distinctly be proved.

In Pandu Rang Kallu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, while deciding the case
stated that Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was enacted as to lift and to
remove the ban provided in section 25 and 26 of the Act in such a way that -
Section 25 and 26, absolutely bans the admission of any confession made to the
police or in police custody but the objects of Section 27 provides the admission
of statements made by an accused even to the Police Officer and the objective
explained by the Supreme Court was that such confession may help in further
discovery of facts which may help the court to prove other facts related to the
case.

Section 24 – Confessions Affecting Co-accused

This section states about Confessions that affect both the accused and a co-
accused. It states that if a confession is made by one accused that incriminates
not only himself but also a co-accused, it is admissible in evidence against the
co-accused as well.

This provision is grounded in the principle of fairness and consistency. If one

accused makes a confession that implicates another, it is considered relevant to
both parties, and therefore it can be admitted as evidence against both.

18 | P a g e
However, the court must be satisfied about the authenticity and voluntariness
of the confession. The admissibility of such confessions often hinges on the
overall facts and circumstances of the case.

Principle
when more persons than one are jointly tried for the same offence, the confession
made by one of them, if admissible in evidence, should be taken into
consideration against all the accused, and not against the person who alone
made it. It appears to be very strange that the confession of one person is to be
taken into consideration against another. Where the confession of one accused
is proved at the trial, the other accused persons have no other opportunity to
cross-examine him. It is opposed to the principle of jurisprudence to use a
statement against a person without giving him the opportunity to cross-examine
the person making the statement. This section is an exception to the rule that
the confession of one person is entirely admissible against the other.

19 | P a g e
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

SR NO. ADMISSIONS CONFESSIONS

1 An admission is a statement made by A confession is a specific type of

a party to a case (either a plaintiff or admission, typically related to
defendant) that is against their own criminal cases. It is a statement
interest in the case. It can be either in which a person admits to
oral or in writing. having committed a crime.

2 Admissions can be used as evidence A confession can be used to

against the party who made the establish the guilt of the accused.
admission.

3 Admissions may be voluntary or To be admissible in court,

involuntary, and they can be used to a confession must be
establish the truth of certain facts. made voluntarily, without
coercion, duress, or
inducement. If a
confession is obtained
through improper means,
it may be considered
inadmissible.

4 Admissions are not limited to The Adhiniyam contains

criminal cases and can occur in civil provisions (Sections 22 to 24)
cases as well. that govern the admissibility of
confessions in criminal cases.

20 | P a g e
5 Admissions may be operated as If the confessions are
estoppels because they are not purposefully and are made on
conclusive as to the facts admitted someone’s own will then it may
by the person who in his statement be accepted as conclusive of the
admit some facts. facts confessed by the confessor.

6 Admissions may be used with respect Confessions are always used or go

to the person who has admitted any against the confessor of the
facts or statements under the statements.
exception of Section 19 of the
Adhiniyam.

7 As it is previously observed that

admission cannot be used against the
Confessions confessed by more
person who is admitting the facts by
than one person jointly for the
any statements as they don’t have
same offence can be considered
much probative evidentiary value.
against other accused of the same
Hence the admission made by the
crime under Section 24 of the
different personalities of the same
Adhiniyam.
suit cannot be used as evidence
against other persons.

21 | P a g e