ADMISSION AND CONFESSION

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MS. ANJU CHOWDHRY KIRAN KUMAR
144/15
SECTION C
B.COM LLB (HONS.)
SEMESTER 7
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CASES ....................................................................................................................... 3

ADMISSION ................................................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
Admissions ............................................................................................................................. 4
Different Kinds of Admissions .............................................................................................. 5
Classification Of Admissions ................................................................................................. 6
Effect Of Admissions ............................................................................................................. 6
Proof Of Admission ............................................................................................................... 6
Admission Can Be Disproved ................................................................................................ 7
Admission--Not Conclusive Proof ......................................................................................... 7
Who Can Make Admissions................................................................................................... 7
Admission By Third Parties ................................................................................................... 8
Conditions For Proof Of Admissions ................................................................................... 10
Exceptions ............................................................................................................................ 11
Admissions in civil cases when relevant. ............................................................................. 13
CONFESSIONS........................................................................................................................... 15
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 15
Utility of Confession ............................................................................................................ 15
Confessions Under Inducement, Threat Or Promise ............................................................ 16
Confession Made To A Police Officer ................................................................................. 19
Confessions Made In Police Custody................................................................................... 21
Discovery Of Fact Consequent To Statement Of Accused .................................................. 22
Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise,
relevant ................................................................................................................................. 25
Confessions Obtained By Promise Of Secrecy Etc. ............................................................. 26
Confession Of Co-Accused .................................................................................................. 27
Retracted Confession............................................................................................................ 29
ADMISSION AND CONFESSION DISTINGUISHED ....................................................................... 31
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................ 33

PAGE 2 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
TABLE OF CASES

S. NO. CASE NAME CITATION

1. ABDULVAHAB ABDULMAJID SHAIKH V. STATE OF (2007) 4 SCC 257 (261)
GUJARAT
2. AGHNOO NAGESIA V. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1966 SC 119
3. AHER RAJA KHIMA V. STATE OF SAURASHTRA AIR 1956 SC 217
4. AJODHYA PRASAD BHARGAVA V. BHAWANI PRASAD AIR 1957 All 1(FB)
GUPTHA
5. ALOKE NATH DUTTA V. STATE OF W.B (2007) 12 SCC 230, 277

6. APPAVU V. NANJAPPA ILR 25 Mad LJ 329

7. BHAGIRATH V. STATE OF M.P AIR 1959 MP 17.
8. BHARAT SINGH V. BHAGIRATHI, AIR 1966 SC 405
9. C.B.L V. V.C. SHUKLA (1998) 3 SCC 410.
10. COOLE V. BRAHAM (1848) 3 Exchequer 183

11. DUNDBAHADUR SINGH V. DURGA PRASAD SINGH AIR 1953 Pat 346
12. GOVINDJI V. CHOTALAL (1900) 2 Bom LR 651 .

13. HIRACHAND KOTHARI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AIR 1985 SC 998

14. IBRAHIM HUSSAIN V. STATE,AIR 1969 Goa 68
15. IMPERATRIX V. PITAMBER JHA (1877) 2 Bom 61
16. JAGDISH PRASAD V. SARWAN KUMAR AIR 2003 P&H 3
17. K.S. SRINIVASAN V. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1958 SC 419
18. KARTAR SINGH V. PUNJAB 1994 SCC (3) 569

19. MADIAH V. STATE 1992 Cri LJ 502

20. MOHD. KHALID V. STATE OF W.B (2002) 7 SCC 334
21. PAKALA NARAYAN SWAMI V. THE KING EMPEROR AIR 1939 PC 47.
22. PAKKIRISAMY V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (1997) 8 SCC 158
23. PALVINDER KAUR V. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1952 SC 354.
24. PRAVEEN KUMAR V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2003) 4 SCC 358.

25. PREMESHWAR V. STATE,1981 Bom CR 798

26. PYARE LAL BHARGUA V. STATE OF RAJ,AIR 1963 SC 1094
27. R. V. HARI SINGH 12 Bom LR 899
28. SAHOO V. STATE OF U.P. AIR 1966 SC 40
29. SHRI SHAIL NAGESH PARE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (1985) 2 SCC 341
30. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) V. NAVJOT SANDHU (2005) 11 SCC 600.
31. STATE OF U.P. V. DEOMAN UPADHYAYA, AIR 1960 SC 1125

PAGE 3 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
ADMISSION

INTRODUCTION

Admission plays a very important part in judicial proceedings. If one party to a suit or any other
proceedings proves that the other party has admitted his case, the work becomes easier.
Admission has been dealt with section 17 to 23. The intervening sections, i.e., 24 to 30 are
devoted to confession.

Sections 17 to 20 define admissions. Section 21 gives as to what party to a proceeding can use
admission, i.e., it gives as to when an admission by one person can be proved by another and
when and in what circumstances it can be proved by the person making the statement. Section
22 excludes the oral evidence against the contents of documents. Section 23 deals with
relevancy in civil cases of admission made upon an expressed condition that it shall not be
given in evidence.

Admissions are a species of statements suggesting an inference as to the fact in issue or relevant
fact. Confessions are sub-species of admissions made by an accused admitting that he
committed an offence.1Sections 24 to 30 deal with confessions and in the Evidence Act they
are placed under the heading "Admissions" starting with Section 17. It must be borne in mind
that Sections 24, 25 and 26 are the sections that bar certain confessions as they are considered
as involuntary and not made out of free will. While Sections 27 and 28 are in the form of
exceptions to one or the other preceding sections, Section 29 qualifies the admissibility of
certain confessions. Section 30 deals with relevance of confession by the co-accused in a joint
trial.

ADMISSIONS

Section 17 defines an admission as follows:

S. 17. Admission defined. --An admission is a statement, 1[oral or documentary or contained

in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and
which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

The ingredients of Section 17 are:

1
Substituted by the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000) Section 92 and Second Schedule (w.e.f. 17-
10-2000), for the words "oral and documentary)"
PAGE 4 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
(1) An admission is a statement, oral or documentary
(2) which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact and
1. which is made
a) by any of the persons, and
b) under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY defines "admission" as a voluntary acknowledgement made

by a party of the existence of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claim in an action.
The reference to "any inference" shows that the definition is neutral in character in the sense
that it covers not only the statement that goes against the interests of the maker but also
statements that are self-serving. As pointed out by the Law Commission of India, "although in
popular language, the expression 'admission' is used to connote a statement against one's
interests, that is not the meaning given to it in the Act."2 In fact, Section 21 treats a self-serving
statement also as an admission as is evident from its Illustration (d) which states:

A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. He offers to prove

that he refused to sell them below their value. A may prove these statements, though
they are admissions, because they are explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in
issue.

DIFFERENT KINDS OF ADMISSIONS

Admissions may be oral and written; and a party may also make admissions by signs or silence.
Words addressed to others and writing, are no doubt the most usual forms; but words uttered
in soliloquy seem equally receivable; while of signs, a deaf and dumb person may be called on
to plead or advocate his cause, through the medium of an interpreter who can explain his signs
to the court. In criminal cases where a person charged with having committed an offence makes
no reply, the court may draw an inference from his silence. Admissions may be express, i.e, in
the form of words uttered or written, or implied which is arrived indirectly, i.e, by inference
from conduct or circumstances.

2
The 69th Report of the Law Commission of India (1977), p. 165, para. 9.1.
PAGE 5 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
In certain cases, conduct may amount to admission, eg, demeanour, flight, failure to produce
witness or documents or to go to the witness-box. But strictly speaking the conduct itself cannot
be called an admission as admissions are statements3 by persons oral or written.

CLASSIFICATION OF ADMISSIONS

Admissions are broadly of two categories: --

1. Judicial admissions
2. Extra-judicial admissions.

Judicial admissions are formal admissions made by a party during the proceedings so that it is
recorded in the file of the court. “Admissions expressly made in the proceedings prior to the
trial are sometimes called formal or express admissions, to distinguish them from those
informal or casual statements made by a party against his interest, which may be proved by
witnesses. Judicial admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them. They constitute
a waiver of proof.

Extrajudicial admissions are informal admissions not appearing on the record of the case. Such
admissions may occur in the ordinary course of life, or in the course of business, or in casual
or informal conversation.

EFFECT OF ADMISSIONS

1. An admission constitutes a substantive piece of evidence in the case and, for that reason,
can be relied upon for proving the truth of the facts incorporated therein.

2. An admission has the effect of shifting the onus of proving to the contrary on the party
against whom it is produced, with the result that it casts an imperative duty on such party
to explain it. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, it is presumed to be true.

3. An admission, in order to be competent and to have the value and effect referred to above,
should be clear, certain and definite, and not ambiguous, vague or confused.4

PROOF OF ADMISSION

When facts are admitted, they do not require any proof and they are presumed to be true unless
the contrary is shown. Proof of admission or confession can be offered by a witness who heard

3
The word 'statement' has been used in Sections 14 to 21, 32, 39 and 145 in its primary meaning of something
that is stated; and communication is not necessary in order that it may be stated.
4
Ajodhya Prasad Bhargava v. Bhawani Prasad Guptha,AIR 1957 All 1(FB).
PAGE 6 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
the admission or the confession.5Admission can be proved whether the maker is examined or
not, or whether he is confronted with it or not, when examined.6 An admission cannot be proved
by recital in a judgment.7 An admission only binds the party who makes it to the extent of the
admission and cannot be extended further.8

ADMISSION CAN BE DISPROVED

Admission can be used against the maker of it; but it is open to the maker of the admission to
prove the admission as erroneous.9

ADMISSION--NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF

The law by no means regards admission as conclusive proof of the matters admitted. This is
because, to a Court of Law, admissions are but statements which do no more than suggest an
inference as to some fact or facts in issue. An admission is not conclusive proof of the matter
admitted though in certain circumstances it may operate as an estoppel.10 Admissions are good
pieces of evidence and they can well be used against its maker, but they are not conclusive and
unless they constitute an estoppel, the maker is at liberty to prove that they are mistaken or
untrue.11

WHO CAN MAKE ADMISSIONS

Under Section 18 the following persons can make admissions:

(1) a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party,

(2) parties to suits suing or sued in a representative character;

(3) persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the
proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested,

(4) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-
matter of the suit.

5
Sahoo v. State of U.P.,AIR 1966 SC 40.
6
Bharat Singh v. Bhagirathi,AIR 1966 SC 405; Union of India v. Moksh Builders,AIR 1977 SC 409.
7
Dundbahadur Singh v. Durga Prasad Singh,AIR 1953 Pat 346.
8
Premeshwar v. State,1981 Bom CR 798 : 1982 Cr LR 39.
9
Duana Moliko v. Bhagabat Biso,AIR 1967 Ori 110; Shamsher v. Rustam,AIR 1988 Raj 188; Delhi Transport
Corporation.
10
K.S. Srinivasan v. Union of India,AIR 1958 SC 419 : 1958 SCR 1295.
11
Jagdish Prasad v. Sarwan Kumar, AIR 2003 P&H 3, 9, para 11 : 2002 (2) Civil Court C 573 : 2002 (2) Cur LJ
(CCR) 279 : 2002 (3) Ice 101 : 2002 (2) Punj LR 476 : 2002 (3) Rec CrR 34.
PAGE 7 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
Party to Proceeding

Under the Evidence Act admissions can be made by "party to the proceeding" and the
proceeding can be of civil or criminal in nature. Hence, plaintiff and defendant in a civil case,
and the prosecution and the accused in a criminal proceeding can make binding admissions.

Agent of a Party

It is a well-established principle of agency applicable under the law of contracts, the law of
torts and the criminal law that the principal is bound by the admissions made by his agent. To
bind the principal by his admissions, the agent must be regarded by the Court to have had
express or implied authority to act on behalf of the principal.12

Apart from persons who may be employed as agents, the parties' attorneys and advocates are
also treated as their agents and they can bind their clients by admissions in civil cases.
Admissions made by an advocate bind the client on questions of fact but not of law.13

ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTIES

Sections 19 and 20 deal with admissions made by persons who do not have any direct
connection with the matter in dispute or, in other words, persons who may be called third
parties. The two sections are exceptions to the general rule that admissions by strangers to the
suit or "occasional admissions"14 are not admissible in evidence.15 However, an admission to
be relevant under these sections, it should fulfil the conditions laid down in Sections 17 and
21.

Section 19 provides:

S.19. Admissions by persons whose position must be proved as against party to

suit.--Statements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove
as against any party to the suit, are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as
against such persons in relation to such position or liability in a suit brought by or
against them, and if they are made whilst the person making them occupies such
position or is subject to such liability.

Illustration

12
Govindji v. Chotalal, (1900) 2 Bom LR 651 .
13
Ibid.
14
M. Munir, Text Book on the Law of Evidence, 7th edn., revised by Dr. Manjula Batra (Delhi, 2006), p. 70.
15
Coole v. Braham, (1848) 3 Exchequer 183 .
PAGE 8 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
A undertakes to collect rents for B.

B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B.

A denies that rent was due from C to B.

A statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and is a relevant fact as against A, if A

denies that C did owe rent to B.

Section 19 deals with the statements of persons whose position is in issue, though they are not
parties to the case. The section is based upon the principle that where the right or liability of a
party to a suit depends upon the liability of a third person, any statement by that third person
about his liability is an admission against the parties. Where, for example, the liability of an
agent to account to his principal depends upon the liability of the third party with whom the
agent contracted on the principal’s behalf, any statements by the third party about his position
is an admission against the parties.16

In Appavu v. Nanjappa,17 it was observed: "The object of this section is not to lay down that
certain statements are relevant or admissible, but merely to add to the category of persons by
whom a statement may be made before it can be considered to be an admission within the terms
of the Indian Evidence Act. The statements referred to in Section 19 become admissible
provided they satisfy the requirements of Section 17 as regards their nature, and Section 21 or
any of the following sections, as regards their liability."

Section 20 provides:

S. 20. Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party in suit. --Statements

made by person to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for information in
reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.

Illustration

The question is whether a horse sold by A to B is sound.

A says to B--"Go and ask C, C knows all about it." C's statement is an admission.

This section forms another exception to the rule that admissions by strangers to a suit are not
relevant. There must be an express reference for information in order to make the statement of

16
Sivalingam v. Saktival, AIR 1989 Mad. 252.
17
ILR 25 Mad LJ 329.
PAGE 9 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
a person referred to admissible. The section makes vicarious admission in a dispute admissible.
Where the parties refer expressly to a third person for information or an opinion regarding their
dispute, the statements made by the third person, who may be called as a referee, are admissible.
When once a matter is referred to a third person, it means that the parties to the dispute, in
anticipation of the opinion to be given in the dispute, approve of it and adopt it as if it were
their own.

In Hirachand Kothari v. State of Rajasthan,18 it was held that, where a party refers to a third
person for information in respect of a matter in dispute, the statements made by the third person
are receivable as admissions against the party making the reference; the reason being that, when
a party refers to another person for his views by way of a statement, the party approves his
utterance in anticipation and adopts it as his own. The principle is the same as that of a reference
to arbitration, but, in any case, there must be clear admission to refer, and such admissions are
generally conclusive.

CONDITIONS FOR PROOF OF ADMISSIONS

Section 21 is an important provision which lays down the conditions and circumstances in
which an admission can be proved. The section says:

S. 21. Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf.-
-Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or
his representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person
who makes them or by his representative in interest, except in the following cases:--

1. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it

is of such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant
as between third persons under section 32.
2. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it
consists of a statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant
or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed,
and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.
3. An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is
relevant otherwise than as an admission.

18
AIR 1985 SC 998.
PAGE 10 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
EXCEPTIONS

Maker of admission dead [EXCEPTION 1]

Section 32 deals with the statement of persons who have died or who otherwise cannot come
before the court. The statement of any such person can be proved in any case or proceeding to
which it is relevant whether it operates in favour of or against the person making the statement.
In circumstances stated in section 32 such a statement can be proved by the maker himself if
he is still alive. The exception is thus stated in S. 21(1).

An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of

such a nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as
between third persons under section 32.

Illustration (c) is also on the same point.

A is accused of a crime committed by him at Calcutta.

He produces a letter written by himself and dated at Lahore on that day and bearing
the Lahore post-mark of that day.

The statement in the date of the letter is admissible, because, if A were dead, it would
be admissible under section 32, clause (2).

Admission made in a particular mental or physical state [EXCEPTION 2]

The state of a man's mind or body is relevant under S. 14; and statements narrating such facts,
indicating the state of mind or body, may be proved on behalf of a person narrating them. But
such statements should have been made at or about the time when such state of mind or body
existed.

Illustration (b):

B. A is accused of receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen.

He offers to prove that he refused to sell them below their value.

A may prove these statements, though they are admissions, because they are
explanatory of conduct influenced by facts in issue.

Subsection 21(2) enables a person to prove his statements as to his state of body or of mind. If,
for example a person is injured and the question is whether the injury was intentional or
accidental, his statement at that time as to the way he was injured can be proved by himself.
PAGE 11 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
The statement should have been made at about the time when the state of mind or of body. This
rule out chances of fabrication. Furthermore, the statement should be accompanied by conduct
which renders the falsehood of the statement improbable.

Admission relevant otherwise than admission [EXCEPTION 3]

This clause states that an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if
it is relevant otherwise than as an admission. In this connection Section 6 of this Act may be
referred to, wherein it is stated, that facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a
fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant whether they occur at the same
time and place or at different times and places; to put it in other words, as part of res gestae, or
as a statement accompanying or explaining a particular conduct; but it is impossible to held
that a statement which is inadmissible as an admission under the general rule can be made
admissible as such under this cl. (3).19

When oral admissions as to contents of documents are relevant.

Section 22

Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the
party proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of
the contents of such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the
genuineness of a document produced is in question.

This section states that oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant. They
are, however, admissible when the party is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents
of such document under Sections 65 and 66. Such admissions are also admissible when the
genuineness of the document produced is in question. Written admissions in contradistinction
with oral admissions are relevant. A written admission is admissible under Section 65, clause
(b) of this Act as secondary evidence of the contents of a document.

Section 65 states in which cases secondary evidence relating to documents may be given. Under
clause (a), if a document is in the possession or power of the person against whom the document
is sought to be proved, after giving notice as required under Section 66, if the other party does
not produce it, then secondary evidence can be given. Under clause (b), when the existence,
condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person

19
Paschand Nixon ,AIR 1930 Oudh 441.
PAGE 12 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest, secondary evidence may be given.
The other clauses state when secondary evidence can be given, when the original is lost or
destroyed or cannot be brought to court, or when the original is a public document, etc.

So far as the contents of a document are concerned, secondary evidence can be given as pointed
out earlier, but when the question is whether the document is genuine or not, it may be proved
in different ways, as contemplated by different sections of this Act. It may be proved under this
section and Section 70 which says that the admission of a party to an attested document of its
execution by himself shall be sufficient proof of its execution as against him, though it be a
document required by law to be attested.

When oral admission as to contents of electronic records are relevant.

Section 22A

Oral admissions as to the contents of electronic records are not relevant, unless the
genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question.

Electronic records are presumed to be true. No further evidence is necessary in proof of a fact
appearing in such record. It is only when the genuineness of the record is in question that other
evidence would be receivable. In that case, an oral account of the contents of such record would
also become receivable in evidence.

ADMISSIONS IN CIVIL CASES WHEN RELEVANT.

S. 23.

In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition

that evidence of it is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can
infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

Explanation.--Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader, attorney
or vakil from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence
under .

In civil cases if an admission of liability is made by a party upon an express condition that
evidence of such admission should not be given, that it was made for the purpose of buying
peace and settling disputes by compromise instead of legal proceedings; or if an admission is
made under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that
evidence of it should not be given, such admission is not relevant and is protected by this
PAGE 13 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
section. This section is based, firstly, on public policy and, secondly, as a matter of privilege
or confidentiality. It is based on the maxim "Interest rei publical at sit finis liticem" (it is in the
interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation).

PAGE 14 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
CONFESSIONS

INTRODUCTION

Confessions are sub-species of admissions made by an accused admitting that he committed an

offence.1Sections 24 to 30 deal with confessions. Sections 24, 25 and 26 are the sections that
bar certain confessions as they are considered as involuntary and not made out of free will.
While Sections 27 and 28 are in the form of exceptions to one or the other preceding sections,
Section 29 qualifies the admissibility of certain confessions. Section 30 deals with relevance
of confession by the co-accused in a joint trial. Thus, there is no exclusive section in the Act
under which confessions are declared relevant and they are relevant only as admissions under
Section 17 read with Sections 18 and 21.

"Confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or
suggesting the inference that he committed the crime." -- Stephen

Under Stephen's definition, an admission amounts to a confession if the accused (a) states that
he committed the crime or (b) suggests an inference that he committed the crime.

A confession, like admission, is considered relevant because it is a self-harming statement and

nobody would make a statement harming his interests unless it is true. Hence, "the confession
statement should pass the twin tests of voluntariness and truthfulness." A confession is said to
be voluntary when it is made without "fear of prejudice or hope of advantage." It is said,
"voluntariness, being the warrant for veracity, was then regarded as the sine qua non of
confessions". The very justification of admitting a confession is that it is made willingly and
out of free consent and this rationale is destroyed if it is obtained by coercion or inducement.

UTILITY OF CONFESSION

 Reliance on "confession" is based on the Latin maxims "Confession facta in judicio est plena
probation" means "a confession is the absolute proof", and "habemus optimum testem, con-
fitentem reum" which literally means: "we have the best witness, a confessing defendant"; in
other words, confession of an accused is the best evidence against him.
 "A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to
flow from the highest sense of guilt."
 A confession, if voluntary and truthfully made, is an "efficacious proof of guilt".
 A confession that is true but involuntary is no better than a confession that is false but
voluntary.
PAGE 15 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
 Confession cannot be deduced from mere silence or conduct like absconding by the accused.
Such conduct, as was already seen, may be relevant under Section 8 .
 An extra-judicial confession is in the nature of things a weak type of evidence, and the Court
should apply two tests: Is it voluntary? And Is it true?
 It was wholly unlikely that the accused would make extra judicial confession to a person
whom he never knew, and much less to a person who is inimically disposed towards him.
 Prudence and justice demand that a confession cannot be made the sole ground of conviction
and that it requires to be corroborated by other evidence.
 Each and every particular in the confession need not be corroborated by separate and
independent evidence.

CONFESSIONS UNDER INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR PROMISE

S. 24.

Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding:

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

making of 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,
proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to
give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing
that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature
in reference to the proceedings against him.

According to the section, a confession by an accused is irrelevant, if it is caused by

(1) inducement;
(2) threat; or
(3) promise.

The inducement, threat, or promise should have

(a) reference to the charge against the accused;

(b) proceeded from a person in authority, and
(c) sufficiently given the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by making
the confession he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in
reference to the proceedings against him.

PAGE 16 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
The principle therein is that confession must be voluntary. It must be the outcome of his own
free will, inspired by the sound of his own conscience to speak nothing but the truth.20 The
expression 'appears' connotes that the Court need not go to the extent of holding that the threat
etc. has in fact been proved. If the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence adduced
make it reasonably probable that the confession could be the result of threat, inducement or
pressure, the Court will refrain from acting on such confession, even if it be a confession made
to a Magistrate or a person other than police officer. Confessions leading to discovery of fact
which is dealt with under Section 27 is an exception to the rule of exclusion of confession made
by an accused in the custody of a police officer.

This section is mainly intended to safeguard the interest of the accused, on the ground of public
policy and for proper administration of justice. The Supreme Court observed:

"It is abhorrent to our notions of justice and fair play, and is also dangerous, to allow
a man to be convicted on the strength of a confession unless it is made voluntary and
unless he realises that anything he says may be used against him; and any attempt by
a person in authority to bully a person into making a confession, or any threat or
coercion would at once invalidate it, if the fear was still operating on his mind at the
time he makes the confession, and if it 'would appear to him reasonable for supposing
that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature
in reference to the proceedings against him'."21

Another suggested rationale for the rule was that it was intended thereby to restrain law
enforcement agencies from oppressive behaviour.

Under the latter part of the section, the court has to form an opinion that the inducement, threat
or promise by the person in authority is sufficient to give the accused person grounds which
would appear to him reasonable for supposing that, by making it, he would gain any advantage
or avoid any evil of a temporal nature. The responsibility of the court would be great because
the court must relegate itself to the position of the accused and see whether the inducement,
threat or promise given to the accused would appear reasonable to make the accused feel that
he would gain an advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature with reference to the charge
against him.22 Thus, it can be seen that this section through its wording has given the fullest

20
Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B.,(2002) 7 SCC 334
21
Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217.
22
Pyare Lal Bhargua v. State of Raj,AIR 1963 SC 1094; Mst. Kistoori v. State of Rajasthan,AIR 1967 Raj 98;
Satbir Singh v. State of Punjab,AIR 1977 SC 1294.
PAGE 17 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
discretion to the court to reject the alleged confession if it entertains a suspicion. The usage of
the word "appears" in the first part of the section indicates a lesser degree of probability than
'proof' as defined in Section 3. On the other hand the court is saddled with the delicate task of
enquiring into the facts which were passing in the mind of the accused at the time of making
the confession.23 If it appears to the court, from the facts and circumstances of the case, that the
confession is not voluntary but it is the result of inducement, threat or promise, it should be
rejected. It is not easy for an accused to show positively that the confession is the result of
inducement, threat or promise.24

The expression 'accused person' in Section 24 and the expression 'a person accused of any
offence' in Section 25 have the same cannotation and describe the person against whom
evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding. It does not predicate a formal accusation
against him at the time of making the statement sought to be proved, as a condition of its
applicability.25 Section 24 refers not only to a person who is an accused at the time when he
made a confession, but also to one who becomes an accused subsequently. The section refers
to the status of the person, at the time when the confession is being considered by the court and
when he is undoubtedly an accused person.

It is well established law that in the process of proof of extra-judicial confession, the Court is
to be satisfied that it is not the result of inducement, threat or promise. The extra-judicial
confession possesses a high probative value as it emanates from the person, who commits
crime, provided it is free from suspicion. While appreciating it the Court is to consider the
relevant factors like:--

(i) to whom it is made;

(ii) the time and place of making it;
(iii) the circumstances, in which it was made;

and the Court is to look for any suspicious circumstance.

Extra-judicial confession must be addressed to somebody and not the way one goes on shouting
in the street that he/she had killed someone. Extra-judicial confession has to be tested after
considering the credentials of the witnesses with whom the accused made extra-judicial

23
In re : Ahmad,AIR 1950 Mys 82.
24
R. v. Panchkouri,AIR 1925 Cal 587; Emperor v. Jamuna,AIR 1947 Pat 305; Raggha v. Emperor,AIR 1925
All 627(FB); R. v. Saw Min,AIR 1939 Rang 219.
25
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya,AIR 1960 SC 1125; Punja Mava v. State of Gujarat,AIR 1965 Guj 5.
PAGE 18 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
confession. For accepting extra-judicial confession, the prosecution must bring on record
reasons for the accused to go to the witnesses to confess the crime. If the court believes the
witness before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was
voluntary, a conviction can safely be founded on such evidence alone.

CONFESSION MADE TO A POLICE OFFICER

S. 25 . Confession to police officer not to be proved.--No confession made to a police-officer,

shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

Police Officer

It is evident from the judicial decisions that the term "police officer" is not given too narrow a
meaning as to refer only to person of the rank of an "officer" but includes all members of the
regular police force. Head Constable, a Police Patel and Chaukidar have been held to be "police
officers". Even persons who do not belong to the police force but are clothed by law with the
powers of the police are held to be "police officers" and attract the ban of Section 25.

Scope

Under this section, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence except
insofar as is provided by Section 27. The principle upon which the rejection of confession
made by an accused to a police officer, or while in the custody of such officer (Section 26), is
founded, is that a confession thus made or obtained is untrustworthy. The broad ground for not
admitting confessions made to a police officer is to avoid the danger of admitting a false
confession.26

The object of this section and Section 26 is to prevent the practice of torture by the police for
the purpose of extracting confessions from accused persons. Under this section no confession
made to a police officer is admissible against the accused.

The Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar27, held that a confession or admission
is evidence against the maker of it unless its admissibility is excluded by some provision of
law; that Section 25 does not exclude all statements by an accused to a police officer, but only
confessions which are an admission in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all the
facts which constitute the offence. This section does not stand in the way of admitting the

26
In re : Zahirabi,AIR 1966 Mys 199. Ibrahim Hussain v. State,AIR 1969 Goa 68.
27
AIR 1966 SC 119.
PAGE 19 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
statement of an accused to a police officer, if such statement does not amount to a confession.
Section 162, Cr PC, should be considered along with Section 25 of this Act while admitting
any statement other than a confession, except as provided in Section 27 which provides that a
statement leading to the discovery of a fact is admissible. Thus Section 25 protects the accused
in respect of a confession made by him to a police officer, whereas Section 162, Cr PC, protects
the accused if it is made during the course of investigation.

Against a Person Accused of an Offence

The wording of Section 25 raises an interesting question. Section 25 says: "No confession made
to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence" and it does not
say: "No confession made to a police officer by a person accused of an offence shall be proved
as against such a person". The question is: If 'A' makes a confession to the police officer, can
it be used against 'B' who is an accused in another case? The answer is in the negative because
Section 25, as it is worded, bars the confession made to a police officer not only against the
maker but also "against a person accused of any offence". The reason is that it is a tainted
confession and it is absolutely devoid of any credit in a Court of law.

The Courts have laid down the following in the interpretation of the phrase "Against a Person
Accused of an Offence":

 A confession cannot be used "against" the accused but it can be used by the accused on
his own behalf if a part of it helps him at the trial to prove, for instance, that he
committed the murder under grave and sudden provocation etc.28

 A confession made by one accused can be used by another accused when both are facing
a joint trial under Section 223 of CrPC.29 As was seen above, when it was held that the
accused who made the confession can himself use it in his own favour, there is no
reason why a co-accused cannot use it similarly.

 On the other hand, a confession made by an accused to the police officer cannot be used
also against a co-accused as it is a tainted confession.30

28
Madiah v. State , 1992 Cri LJ 502 at pp. 506, 507.
29
Imperatrix v. Pitamber Jha, (1877) 2 Bom 61.
30
R. v. Hari Singh, 12 Bom LR 899.
PAGE 20 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
CONFESSIONS MADE IN POLICE CUSTODY

Section 26 states:

S. 26 .Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against

him.--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.

Explanation.--In this section "Magistrate" does not include the head of a village
discharging magisterial functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere,
unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).

Section 25 excludes confessions to police officers under any circumstances. This section
excludes confessions to anyone else, while the person making it is in a position to be influenced
by a police officer. The presence of the Magistrate secures the free and voluntary nature of the
confession and the confessing person has an opportunity of making a statement uncontrolled
by any fear of the police. Thus, this section is a further extension of the principle laid down in
Section 25. Section 25 applies to all confessions made to police officers; this section applies
to confessions made to persons other than police officers but made while in police custody.

Custody

The word 'custody' is not defined in the Act . But it implies that there must be some limitation
upon the liberty of the citizen, either directly or indirectly caused by police, which may include
arrest, detention, surveillance or any restraint on his movement. It does not necessarily mean
custody after formal arrest; it is sufficient if there is some form of police surveillances, or
restriction by the police on the movements of the person concerned.

Unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate

The words "unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate" engraft an exception
to the bar under Section 26 and they carry the literal meaning that mere physical presence of a
Magistrate is sufficient to make the confession made in police custody admissible under
Section 26. The Courts had also held that even an oral confession made to or in the presence
of a Magistrate was admissible under Section 26 .31 The reason is obvious that the Indian

31
Sarkar's Law of Evidence, 14th edn., M.C. Sarkar et al., eds. Vol.1
PAGE 21 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
Evidence Act was enacted in 1872 whereas the CrPC was made much later in 1898. Naturally,
there are references to the Evidence Act in CrPC32 but not vice versa. As it stands even now,
after more than 100 years of coming into force of CrPC and after many amendments to the
Evidence Act, Section 26 is not amended to state that the confession must be recorded by the
Magistrate as per the procedure laid down in Section 164 of CrPC .33 That was the reason that
the Law Commission of India proposed in its 69th Report of 1977 that Section 26 be amended
to bring it in line with Section 164 of CrPC as follows:

“No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, shall
be proved as against such person unless it is recorded by the Magistrate under Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”34

Magistrate should follow the procedure laid down in Section 164 so as to exclude the oral
admissions and to ensure that the confession is voluntary by administering the warnings
prescribed under Section 164 to the accused who is already under police custody. In the light
of many decisions of the Supreme Court, it is now settled law that the Magistrate in whose
presence the confession is made must record it in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Section 164 of CrPC and also that, as held in Kartar Singh v. Punjab ,35 "he shall record the
confession in the manner provided in Section 281 for recording the examination of the accused
person. It shall not only be signed by the Magistrate, but also by the accused himself." "A
confession duly recorded with the prescribed certificate appended to it may be presumed to be
voluntary".36 Thus, where the accused in police custody made the confession in the presence of
the Magistrate who recorded the confession but not in the manner prescribed by Section 164,
it was held that the statement was not admissible under Section 26 .37

DISCOVERY OF FACT CONSEQUENT TO STATEMENT OF ACCUSED

Section 27 says:

S. 27 . How much of information received from accused may be proved.--Provided

that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received

32
For instance Section 162(2) and Section 163(1) .
33
19 In Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abu Mujahid v. Maharashtra, 2012 STPL (Web) 464 SC
34
69th Report, p. 206, para. 11.15.
35
1994 SCC (3) 569
36
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab @ Abumujahid v. Maharashtra, 2012 STPL (Web) 464 SC, it was
held: "If a doubt is created regarding the voluntariness of the confession, notwithstanding the safeguards stipulated
in Section 164 it has to be trashed..."
37
Mahesh v. State , 2010 Cri LJ 203 (Madras HC) : Tandra Devi v. Andhra Pradesh, 2001 Cr LJ 4048 (AP) .
PAGE 22 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of
such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

This section is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by
the discovery of a fact, the confession may be presumed to be true, and not to have been
extracted. It comes into operation only:

 if and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of

information received from an accused person in police custody; and

 if the information relates distinctly to the fact discovered.

The object of this section is to admit evidence which is relevant to the matter under inquiry,
namely, the guilt of the accused, and not to admit evidence which is not relevant to that matter.
The discovery of a material object is of no relevancy to the question whether the accused is
guilty of the offence charged against him, unless it is connected with the offence. It is, therefore,
the connection of the thing discovered which renders its discovery a relevant fact. The
connection between the offence and the thing discovered may be established by evidence other
than the statement leading to the discovery but that does not exclude proof of the connection
by the statement itself.38

Section 27 is to be pressed into service only to make admissible a statement to police, which
is otherwise inadmissible leading to certain discovery relating to the offence.

Under this section:

1. there must be information;

2. it does not matter whether the information amounts to confession or not;

3. that person must be in the custody of a police officer;

4. in consequence of the information a fact must be deposed to as discovered;

5. in such a case so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered may be proved.

Conditions Necessary for Operation Of

38
Puran Singh v. King-Emperor,(1946) 25 Pat 279
PAGE 23 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
1. The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must
be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The
relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions
relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make
the fact discovered admissible.
2. The fact must have been discovered
3. The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the
accused and not by accused's own act.
4. The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence
5. He must be in the custody of a police officer.
6. The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in
custody must be deposed to
7. Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the
fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.

Recovery need not be made immediately after statement is made.—

There is no restriction that recovery should be made immediately after the statement is made.
So long as recovery/discovery is pursuant to statement made by accused the said statement
would be admissible in view of Section 27. 39

Conflict between Section 27 Indian Evidence Act and Section 162 CrPC

Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24, 25 and 26 and permits proof of a confession if it

leads to the discovery of fact even if the confession was made to a police officer or in police
custody. On the other hand, Section 162 CrPC bars "any use" of the confession made to police
during the investigation of a case. One of the uses is the use of the confession by the accused
and in his own favour under Section 25 . The other use of the confession is by the prosecution
where it leads to the discovery of fact under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

"There was a conflict of opinion amongst the various High Courts in regard to the admissibility
of a statement made to the police which led to the discovery of the incriminating article",
Section 162 was amended in 1941 to "resolve" the issue by providing that "Nothing in this
section shall be deemed to apply to any statement failing within the provisions of clause (1) of
Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), or to affect the provisions of Section

39
Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2003 (4) Crimes 358 (SC) : 2003 (Supp-2) JT 431 : (2003) 4 SCC 358.
PAGE 24 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
27 of that Act." This amendment removed the ban of Section 162 on the "use" by the
prosecution of the statement of the accused that led to the discovery of some fact.

CONFESSION MADE AFTER REMOVAL OF IMPRESSION CAUSED BY INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR

PROMISE, RELEVANT

S. 28.

If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 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.

This section expressly forms an exception to the law provided by s. 24 and its proper position
in the Act should have been immediately after it. if it is proved to the complete satisfaction of
the judge that the impression created by the original inducement or promise or threat has been
wholly removed, eg by lapse of time or by a duly administered caution from a superior authority
or by any other circumstance, a confession subsequently made becomes admissible.

This section therefore lays down the condition under which a confession rendered irrelevant
by s. 24 may become relevant under s. 28. The removal or termination of the inducement must
be clearly established by the prosecution and the judge must be of the clear opinion that no
trace of the original inducement or threat lingered. It is presumed to have continued till the
contrary is shown.

In HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND 4th Edn., Vol 11, p. 234, para 412 it is stated: "A
statement otherwise admissible may not be received if it is influenced by an inducement made
to obtain a previous statement; thus, if the threat or promise under which the first statement
was made, still persists when the second is made, the second statement will be inadmissible.
Only where the time which elapses between the making of the two statements, the
circumstances and the giving of any caution are such that it can be said that the original threat
or inducement has been dissipated will the second statement be admitted as being voluntary.

"The word 'fully' in Section 28 is significant: it means 'thoroughly', 'completely', 'entirely', so

as not to leave any trace of the impression created by torture or fear; for, confession forced
from the mind by the flattery of hope or by torture or fear comes in so questionable a shape

PAGE 25 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
that no credit can be given to it. A free and voluntary confession is presumed to flow from the
strongest sense of guilt and therefore, it is admitted as proof of the crime."40

CONFESSIONS OBTAINED BY PROMISE OF SECRECY ETC.

S. 29 . Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of

secrecy, etc.

If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because
it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on
the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because
it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may
have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not
bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.

Under this section a relevant confession does not become irrelevant merely because it was
made under:

1. a promise of secrecy, or

2. in consequence of a deception or artifice practised on the accused, or

3. when he was drunk, or

4. because it was elicited in answer to a question, or

5. because no warning was given that he was not bound to say anything and that
whatever he might say would be used as evidence against him.

If such a confession is otherwise relevant

According to the majority of judicial pronouncements and the opinions of the learned
commentators, "such a confession" means a confession that is not declared inadmissible under
any of the previous sections. Sections 24, 25 and 26 are the sections that bar admissibility of
certain confessions. So, Section 29 refers to confessions that

I. are not made under the inducement, threat promise, as under Section 24,
II. are not made to a police officer as under Section 25 or

40
Bhagirath v. State of M.P AIR 1959 MP 17.
PAGE 26 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
III. made in police custody but are recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164
CrPC.

So, if a confession is not barred by Sections 24, 25 and 26, the confession is "otherwise
relevant" within the meaning of the opening words of Section 29

CONFESSION OF CO-ACCUSED

S. 30 . Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly

under trial for same offence.

When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a
confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such
persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against
such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.

Explanation. --"Offence" as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to
commit, the offence.

ILLUSTRATION

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.

Object

The object of this section is that where an accused person unreservedly confesses his own guilt,
and at the same time implicates another person who is jointly tried with him for the same
offence, his confession may be taken into consideration against such other person as well as
against himself, because the admission of his own guilt operates as a sort of sanction, which,
to some extent, takes the place of the sanction of an oath and so affords some guarantee that
the whole statement is a true one. When a person admits his guilt to the fullest extent, and
exposes himself to the pains and penalties provided therefor, there is a guarantee for his truth.
But this is a very weak guarantee. For a confession may be true so far as its maker is concerned
but may be false and conducted through malice so far as it affects others.

This section is an exception to the rule that the confession of one person is entirely inadmissible
against another. The policy of the law in allowing a confession by one accused to be considered
against another who is being jointly tried for the same offence, seems to rest on the recognition

PAGE 27 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
of the palpable fact that such a confession cannot fail to make an impression on the Judge's
mind, which it was therefore better to control within limits than to ignore altogether.41

Ingredients/Conditions
Before a statement of one of the accused persons can be taken into consideration against the
other accused under Section 30 of the Act, the following ingredients/conditions must exist/be
fulfilled : --

I. there must be joint trial for the same offence;

II. it must be a confession;

III. the confession of guilt must affect himself and others, i.e., implicate the maker
substantially to the same extent as the other accused;
IV. the confession of guilt must be duly proved.

All the conditions should exist at a time and if any of the conditions is missing in a case this
section has no applicability and the accused cannot be roped.

The Court May Take into Consideration Such Confession

The expression "the Court may take into consideration such confession" is significant. It
signifies that such confession by the maker as against the co-accused himself should be treated
as piece of corroborative evidence. In absence of any substantive evidence, no judgment of
conviction can be recorded only on the basis of confession of a co-accused, be it extra-judicial
confession or judicial confession and least of all on the basis of retracted confession.42

The section provides that the court may take the confession into consideration and thereby
make it evidence on which the court may act, but it does not say that the confession is
tantamount to proof. There must clearly be other evidence. The confession is only one element
in the consideration of all the facts proved in the case; it can be put into the scale and weighed
with the other evidence. The confession of a co-accused can be used only in support of other
evidence and cannot be made the foundation of a conviction.65

The confession of a co-accused is on an even lower footing than the evidence of an accomplice
and a conviction based on such a confession alone is bad in law. This section provides that such
a confession is to be an element in the consideration of all the facts of the case, but it does not

41
Gaganmull, In re : (1924) 20 LW 202, 205 : AIR 1924 Mad 805
42
Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B., (2007) 12 SCC 230, 277
PAGE 28 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
do away with the necessity for other evidence. It is the duty of the Judge, when there is no other
evidence than the confession of a co-accused, to direct the jury accordingly and tell them to
acquit the accused; and his omission to do so is a misdirection which will vitiate a conviction.

S. 31.
Admissions not conclusive proof but may estop.
Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted but they may operate as
estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained.
This section declares that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but that
they may operate as estoppels. 'Admission' is defined in Section 17. Unless admissions are
contractual or unless they constitute an estoppel, they are not conclusive, but are open to
rebuttal or explanation. Admissions, whether written or oral, which do not operate by way of
estoppel, constitute a kind of evidence, which may be rebutted, against their makers and those
claiming under them, as between them and others. A mere admission is conclusive only where
it has been acted on by the party to whom it was made. An estoppel, i.e., a representation acted
on by the other party, by creating a substantive right, does oblige the estopped party to make
good his representation, in other words, it is conclusive. The maker of the admission would be
precluded from going back on it and speaking the truth on the principle of estoppel if the person
to whom it is made has act ed on its faith.

For the application of the doctrine of estoppel mainly three conditions have to be fulfilled,
firstly , there must be a representation either oral or written by a person to another person.
Secondly , the other person must have acted upon the said representation taking the admissions
as true. Thirdly , he should suffer some prejudice by believing the representation or must have
act ed in detriment to his interest by reason of the representation.

RETRACTED CONFESSION

When a person, having once recorded a confession which is relevant, goes back upon it, saying
either that he never confessed or that he wrongly confessed, that is called a retracted
confession.43 In principle, it seems that retraction should make no difference. It should not
weaken the value of the confession if it is otherwise relevant and worthy of trust.

The Supreme Court has stated that a retracted confession may form the basis of a conviction if
it receives some general corroboration from other independent evidence.44 But if the court finds

43
Pakkirisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 8 SCC 158.
44
Shri Shail Nagesh Pare v. State of Maharashtra, (1985) 2 SCC 341.
PAGE 29 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
that the confession as originally recorded was voluntary, it should be acted upon. The only
difference that retraction should make is that the court will have to be sure that the confession
was really voluntary.

Rules as to Use of Retracted Confession

With regard to retracted confession the rules that appear to have obtained judicial recognition
and are spread over a large number of cases are:-

(1) A confession is not to be regarded as involuntary or unlawfully induced merely

because it has been retracted at the trial.

[In arriving at a conclusion the court has to take into consideration not only the reasons
given for making the confession or retracting it, but all the circumstances of the case].

(2) (a) As against the maker, a retracted confession may form the basis of conviction,
if believed to be true and voluntarily made.

(b) But the better point of view is that a retracted confession must be regarded with
suspicion and as a rule of practice and prudence it is unsafe to base a conviction on
retracted confession alone without independent corroboration. The use of such a
confession is a matter of prudence rather than of law.

(3) As against a co-accused, although a retracted confession may be taken into

consideration, the rule is now firmly established that its value against a co-accused is
practically nil and that it cannot form the basis of a conviction without substantial and
independence corroboration both as to the crime and the criminal.

(4) Far more corroboration would be demanded than the testimony of an accomplice on
oath.

Merely because the confession was retracted, it need not be taken as a confession made under
pressure. The state of mind of the accused at the time of making the confession is the relevant
factor. All confessions are invariably retracted at a later stage, therefore, the retraction by itself
is not a ground to discard the confession by holding that it was not voluntarily made.45

45
Abdulvahab Abdulmajid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat, (2007) 4 SCC 257 (261) : 2007 CrLJ 3405
PAGE 30 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
ADMISSION AND CONFESSION DISTINGUISHED

There are many common features between an admission and a confession. All the provisions
relating to them are given under the heading of "admission” and that speaks of the legislative
intention of treating them as one and the same at least to a certain extent. In both, there is the
acknowledgment of the existence of a fact in issue in the case which may in circumstances be
accepted by the courts as a proof of the truth and accordingly acted upon. The court have also
been using the expression in reference to both kinds of proceedings.

In the first place, since the provisions relating to confessions occur under the heading
"admission," it follows that the word "admission” is more comprehensive and includes a
confession also. A confession is only a species of admission. Thus every confession is an
admission also but term "confession" does not include all kinds of admission. An admission of
a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself a
confession.46

Secondly, though the definition of admission given in S. 17 should equally apply to confessions
also because the term "confession" is nowhere independently defined, yet it has been held by
the Privy Council in Pakala Narayan Swami v. The King Emperor,47 and as affirmed by the
Supreme Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab,48 that a confession must go further and
admit the guilt in terms or substantially the facts from which guilt follows, and not merely
acknowledge a fact suggesting an inference as to a fact in issue or a relevant fact.

Thirdly, a confession is the admission of guilt in reference to a crime and, therefore, invariably
runs against the interest of the accused. The term 'admission', on the other hand, refers to every
statement whether it runs in favour of or against the party making it, and that is why S. 21
permits a person, in certain exceptional cases, to prove his own statements. For example, if a
captain is sued for negligently casting away the ship and he produces a diary written by himself
in the course of the voyage showing that the ship was not taken out of its course. The statement
is in his favour and even so he is permitted by S, 21 to prove It provided only that if he were
dead the statement would have been relevant under S. 32 in a suit between third persons. Thus,
the purport of the Act seems to be that any statement suggesting an inference as to a fact in
issue or a relevant fact whether the inference is in favour of the person making the statement

46
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600.
47
AIR 1939 PC 47.
48
AIR 1952 SC 354.
PAGE 31 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
or against him, is relevant as in admission, but a confession should necessarily be of inculpatory
nature.

Fourthly, the conditions of relevancy are different. An admission made to any person
whatsoever is relevant whether he be a policeman or a person in authority or whether it was
the result of an inducement or a promise. But in the case of a confession the law steadfastly
adheres to the principle that the confession must be free and voluntary.

Fifthly, an admission made under a promise of secrecy is not relevant, but by virtue of the
provisions of S. 29 a confession is provable even if it was obtained under a promise of secrecy.

Sixthly, by virtue of the provision in S. 30 the confession of an accused person is relevant

against all his co-accused who are being tried with him for the same offence. In the case of
admissions, statements of a co-plaintiff or those of a co-defendant are no evidence against the
others. The Supreme Court highlighted this distinction in C.B.l v. V.C. Shukla49 saying that a
statement by a party to a proceeding amounting to an admission can be proved only against
him and not against others who are being jointly tried with him unless it amounts to a
confession also.4

Next, a confession always proceeds from a person who has committed an offence or Is accused
of any crime, but in reference to admissions sections 18, 19 and 20 regard the statements of
certain persons, who are not parties to the case, as admissions against the parties.

Lastly, the effect of an admission is that it does not constitute a conclusive

49
(1998) 3 SCC 410.
PAGE 32 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION
 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of The law of Evidence (23rd ed. 2018) Central Law

Publications.

 Batuk Lal, The Law of Evidence, (21st ed. 2016) Central Law Agency.

 K D Gaur, The Indian Evidence Act, (17th ed. 2016), Universal Law Publications.

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s the Law of Evidence, (26th ed. 2017) Lexis Nexis.

 Justice U.L. Bhat, Lectures on the Indian Evidence Act (13th ed. 2016) Universal Law

Publications.

PAGE 33 OF 33
ADMISSION & CONFESSION