DEFINITION OF CONFESSION

 Mr. Justice Stephen in his digest of law of evidence defined confession as “Confession is an admission
made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he
committed that crime”.

 Confession is an statement that fulfills any two conditions :

 If he states that he committed the crime he is charged with
 If his statements gives some inference that he might have committed the crime.
 Confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made is an “ efficient proof of guilt”.
 It is an important piece Of evidence.

 A voluntary admission, declaration or acknowledgement (made orally or in writing) by one who has
committed a felony or a misdemeanor that he committed the crime/offense or participated in its
commission.

SANAT KHANDELWAL
 JUDICIAL CONFESSION EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION
JUDICIAL CONFESSION also known as FORMAL EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS also known as INFORMAL CONFESSIONS
CONFESSION are those statements which are made are those which are made by the accused elsewhere than before a
before an office of magistrate or in the court of law magistrate or in court. It is not necessary that the statements should
during any criminal proceedings . have been addressed to any definite individual. It may have taken place
• A judicial confession not much other than a “plea of in the form of a prayer. It may be a confession to a private person. An
guilty” as per the provision explained under Article extra-judicial confession has been defined to mean “ a free and
20(3) of Indian Constitution, otherwise any voluntary confession of guilt by a person accused of a crime in the
confession made against the person who is making course of conversation with persons other than judge or magistrate
the confession will have no evidentiary value and seized of the charge against himself.
he cannot be concluded guilty of any offence on • It is a fundamental principle of the court that a prisoner’s confession
the behalf of such confession. outside the court is only admissible, if it is voluntary.
• It may even consist of conversation to oneself , • The value of confession is determined by the veracity of the person
which may be produced in evidence if overheard by to whom the confession is made and who appears to testify to it.
another. • An extra-judicial confession is, in the very nature of things a weak
piece of evidence. There should be no difficulty in rejecting it if it
For Example: In Sahoo v/s State of Uttar Pradesh; The lacks in probability.
accused who was charged with the murder of his
daughter-in-law with whom he was always quarreling RETRACTED CONFESSION
was seen on the day of murder going out of the home,
saying words to the effect: “ I finished her and with her Retraction confession is a type of confession which is previously
the daily quarrels”. The statement was held to be voluntarily made by the confessor but afterwards it is revoked or
confession relevant in evidence, for it is not necessary retracted by the same confessor. Retracted confession can be utilized
for the relevancy of a confession that it should be against the person who is confessing some retracted statements if it is
communicated to some other person. substantiated by another independent and corroborative evidence.
Retraction of statements is something that happens in most criminal
cases. The reason behind the same may be the inadequate police
protection or the ill-developed mechanism for witness protection or the
inherent securities of the witnesses or the accused under the influence
of the status of the opposing party as happens in almost all the high
profile cases.
SANAT KHANDELWAL
VOLUNTARY CONFESSION INDUCED CONFESSION
A voluntary confession is a confession that
Section 24:Confession caused by
has not been coerced or forced from you
inducement ,threat or promise when irrelevant
and has been made with your true and in criminal proceeding-A confession made by
free will. If you make a confession that is an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal
not voluntary , it cannot be admitted as proceeding , if the making of the confession
evidence against you in your trial. Even if appears to the Court to have been caused by
a confession was given voluntarily , it may any inducement ,threat or promise.
still be inadmissible because of the The conditions of irrelevancy under section
oppressive or unfair circumstances in are:
1.The confession must be the result of
which it was obtained.
inducement, threat, or promise.
2.Inducement, etc. should proceed from a
person in authority;
3.It should relate to the charge in
question ;and
4.It should hold out some worldly benefit or
disadvantage.
When these conditions are present, t6he
confession is said to be not free and will not
be receivable in evidence.

SANAT KHANDELWAL
 1.INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR PROMISE
A confession should be free and voluntary. If it flows from
hope or fear, excited by a person in authority, it is
inadmissible.
It is for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the
confession was free and voluntary. It is sufficient for the
purpose of excluding a confession that the confession appears
to have been the result of an inducement, even if it is not
proved that the inducement reached the accused.
2.PERSON IN AUTHORITY
The second requirement is that the inducement, threat or
promise should proceed from a person in authority.
3.INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR PROMISE SHOULD BE IN
REFERENCE TO CHARGE
The section says that the inducement must have reference to
the charge against the accused person.

SANAT KHANDELWAL
CONFESSION TO
POLICE
Section 25 provides that “No
statements made to a Police Officer
shall be considered as a confession
for the purpose of proving that
confession against that person who
is accused to the case”. The terms
explained under Section 25 of this
Act has vital importance which
makes sure that any confession
made by the accused to the police
officer under any circumstances until
provided, is totally not admissible as
evidence in a court of law against
the accused to prove his guilt.

SANAT KHANDELWAL
 CONFESSION IN POLICE CUSTODY
Section 26 provides that a confession which is made in custody of a police officer cannot
be proved against him. Unless it is made before a magistrate. No confession is made to
anybody while the person making it is in the police custody is provable.
The confession made to a police officer or to anyone else while the accused is in police
custody are not different in kind and quality. Both are likely to suffer from the blemish of
not being free and voluntary.

PRESENCE OF MAGISTRATE
The section recognizes one exception. If the accused confesses while in police custody but
in the immediate presence of a magistrate, the confession will be valid.
Immediate presence of the magistrate means his presence in the same room, where the
confession is being recorded.
A confession made while the accused is in judicial custody or lockup will be revelant,even
if the accused is being guarded by policemen.

SANAT KHANDELWAL
 EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION

Confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make an
admission against himself unless prompted by his conscience to tell the truth. The
evidentiary value of a confession has been explained by the Supreme Court in quite a few
cases and the one among them is the decision of SARKARIA, J., in Shankaria v. State of
Rajasthan,5 The learned Judge said: "It is well settled that a confession, if voluntarily and
truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt. Therefore, when in a capital case the
prosecution demands conviction of the accused primarily on the basis of his confession
recorded under S. 164, Cr. P.C., the court must apply a double test:(1) whether the
confession was perfectly voluntary; (2) if so, whether it is true and trustworthy.

PROCEDURE OF RECORDING JUDICIAL CONFESSION

The Judge after referring to the facts of the case to find out whether the confession in
question was voluntary. The magistrate who recorded the confession asks the accused a
number of questions to find out whether he was not being forced by the police to confess
and he would be given 24 hours time in judicial custody to consider whether he should
confess or not. SANAT KHANDELWAL
 CONCLUSION
This change in the Evidence Act is necessary so as to invigorate the trust and
faith of the people of India in the Judiciary that they will be provided imparted
speedy justice to the wrongs done to them by any person. The draft Criminal Law
(Amendment) Bill, 2003 in its statement of objects and reasons mentions that the
disposal of criminal trials in the courts takes considerable time and that in many
cases trial do not commence for as long as 3 to 5 years after the accused was
remitted to judicial custody. In lieu of this, it is pertinent that provisions of
Criminal Law be changed so as to reduce the time needed for a common person
to get justice. After all “Justice should not only be done, but also be seen to be
done”.
Confession is an important form of evidence which is used for proving the case in
a court of law. Based on documents of things we collect during the evidence is
not helpful to prove the case with. It is not always feasible or adequate to base a
case only on documentary evidence collected. This is where confession comes as
a vital form of evidence. There are other forms of evidence which are used to
prove the case but confession is the most valuable form of evidence which cannot
be rejected in the court of law.
SANAT KHANDELWAL