Concept of Confession under evidence Act

INTRODUCTION:

Section 24 to 30 of Indian Evidence Act deal with relevancy of `Confession’ in criminal proceeding. The term “Confession” has not been defined in Indian Evidence Act. In simple words `confession’ means admission or acknowledgement of guilt by person accused of crime.

Definition:

Confession has not been defined under the Indian Evidence Act.It is sub specie of admission. A definition of Sir Stephen has given as under :-

“A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime.”

Thus, the confession is an acceptance of the guilt of the accused.

The definition of ‘admission’ as given in Sec. 17 becomes applicable to confession also. Thus, a confession is a statement made by a person charged with a crime suggesting an inference as to any facts in issue or as to relevant facts. The inference that the statement should suggest should be that he is guilty of the crime.

Case Laws:

Pakala Naryan Swami vs Emperor AIR 1937 PC 47:

Privy Council observed “No statement that contains self-exculpatory matter can amount to a confession if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed, Moreover a confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.”

In State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600:

 The Apex Court observed that confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make an admission against himself unless prompted by his conscience to tell the truth.

Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 354:

It was held that mixed up statement which, even though contains some confessional statement, will still lead to acquittal, is no confession. Thus, a statement that contains self-exculpatory matter (e.g. killing done in private defence) which if true would negative the offence, cannot amount to a confession. Court further held that confession must either be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole, court is not competent to accept only inculpatory part (self-incriminating) and reject exculpatory part (self-defence). The facts of the Palvinder’s case could be noted: “Palvinder was on trial for the murder of her husband; the husband’s body was recovered from a well. The post mortem could not reveal whether death was due to poisoning or what. In her statement to the court, she said that her husband, a photographer, used to keep handy photo developing material which is quick poison; that on the occasion he was ill and she brought him some medicine; that the phial of medicine happened to be kept nearby the liquid developer and the husband while going for the medicine by mistake swallowed the developer and died; that she got afraid and with the help of the absconding accused packed the body in a trunk and disposed it of into the well” The statement, thus, consisted of partly guilty and partly innocent remarks.

Provision regarding Confession under Indian Evidence Act:

Sec. 24 (Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise):

To attract the provisions of Sec. 24, the following facts must be established:

1. The confession must have been made by an accused person to a person in authority.
2. It must appear to the court that the confession has been caused or obtained by reason of any inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority.
3. The inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused person.
4. The inducement, etc. must be such that it would appear to the court that the accused, in making the confession, believed or supposed that he would, by making it, gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

When these conditions are present, the confession is said to be not free Le. voluntary and will not be receivable in evidence. It is necessary that the above conditions must cumulatively exist.

Inducement, etc. should be in reference to charge – The inducement threat or promise should be in reference to the charge in question. Thus, where a person charged with murder, was made to confess to a Panchayat which threatened his removal from the caste for life, the confession was held. to be relevant, for the threat had nothing to do with the charge.

Person in authority – The inducement, threat or promise should proceed from a person in authority, i.e., one who is engaged in the apprehension, detention or prosecution of the accused or one who is empowered to examine him. Thus, government officials, magistrates, their clerks, police constables, wardens and others in custody of prisoners, prosecutors, attorneys, etc. A purely private person cannot be regarded as a person in authority, even if he is able to exert some influence upon the accused.

The Panchayat officers can be said to be persons within the meaning of Sec. 24.

Case Laws :

Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 1167 ,The Supreme Court had observed that to attract prohibition enacted in Section 24 of Evidence Act, following facts must be established

• Statement in question is a confession;
• Such confession is made by accused person;
• It has been made to a person in authority;
• Confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority;
• Inducement, threat or promise, must in the opinion of court be sufficient to give accused grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making of it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in reference to proceedings against him.

  Thus, the Section 24 lays down the rule of exclusion of confession which is not voluntary

Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, 1978 (3) SCC 435 :

The Court noted the twin tests to be applied to evaluate a confession:

1. Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary and
2. If so, whether it is true and trustworthy.

The learned Judge pointed out that if the first test is not satisfied the question of applying the second test does not arise. Then the Court indicated one broad method by which a confession can be evaluated. It was said:

“The Court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. If on such examination and comparison, the confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it may be taken to have satisfied the second test.”

Satbir Singh v State of Punjab (1977) 2 SCC 263, a senior police officer, after having failed to get any confessional statement from the accused through other sources, took upon himself to question the accused and he succeeded in securing confession. The question was whether the confession was voluntary. Held that it was not. The officer having stated to the accused that “now that the case has been registered, he should state the truth”, the statement would generate in the accused’s mind some hope or assurance that if he told the truth he would receive his support.

R vs. Sleeman (1853) 6 Cox CC 245

Where the accused is told, “Be sure to tell the truth”, or “You have committed one sin, do not commit another and tell the truth”, a confession made in response to this is valid. The same is true where the accused is taken to a temple or church and is told to tell the truth in the presence of the Almighty.

Bhagbaticharan v Emperor (1933) 60 Cal 719

The accused, a post-office clerk, under suspicion, fell at his departmental inspector’s feet begging to be saved if he disclosed everything, and the inspector replied that he would try his utmost to save him if he told the truth. The confession was held to be inadmissible, as there was an inducement by the inspector.

Kinds of Confession: Confession before different persons/ authorities and its relevancy:

There are four kinds of Confession:

1. Judicial confession
2. Extra-Judicial Confession
3. Retracted Confession
4. Confession by co-accused

Judicial confession : Sec-164 of CrPC :

Judicial Confessions are those which are made before a magistrate or in court in the due course of legal proceeding. When an accused during investigation of crime, make confession u/s 164 Cr.P.C. or when court frame charge against Accused and Accused plead guilty to charge, it is called a judicial confession. A Judicial Confession is that which is made before Magistrate, during course of investigation, but before commencements of inquiry, or trial.
Sec-164 CrPC : Recording of confessions and statements :-

• Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may,
• Whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case,
  • Record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:
• Provided that such a confession or statement may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence: Judicial Confession is relevant and is used as evidence against the maker.
• Provided it is recorded in accordance with provisions of Section 164 of CrPC.
• Sec-164(2) provides that, the magistrate who records a confession u/s 164 must warn the accused who is about to confess, That he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him, and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless it is being made voluntarily.

Extra-Judicial Confession: Sec-24, 25, 26 of IEA 1872

Sec-24 : Confession made by an accused 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.

Section-25: No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the accused.

Sec-26: No confession made by any person whilst he is in police custody shall be proved as against such person, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

Sec-27: Exception to Rules of Extra-Judicial Confession:

When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequences of information received from an accused in police custody. Then, so much of such information, whether if amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Sec-162 CrPC: Statements to police not to be signed: No evidence value:

Section 162 of CrPC makes provisions to keep out evidence which may have been induced by some form of police duress.

• No statement, made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation, shall, if reduced into writing, be signed by the person making it;
• Nor shall any such statement, or any record thereof:
  • Be used for any purposes at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made.

Case Laws :

Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1977 Cri.L.J. 1941 (SC) : The Supreme Court observed Evidence about extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence. If it is not probable it must be rejected. However, law does not require that evidence of an extra judicial confession must be corroborated in all cases. Where the extra judicial confession is proved by an independent witness who bore no animus against Accused, it may be basis of conviction. If the extra judicial confession is proved to be voluntary conviction can be based on such confession.

Extra judicial confession by its very nature is a weak piece of evidence and lacks authenticity and reliability whereas judicial confession which is recorded after complying with all relevant provisions of law is most reliable and can easily be acted upon by court. It is also important to point out that law does not recognize the evidence of extra judicial confession, as such, therefore it has been held by Apex Court in many judgements that extra judicial confession should ordinarily be not accepted unless it inspires confidence and reliability having regard to facts of each case. Judicial confession on the other hand most reliable and can be made basis of conviction.

Difference between judicial and extra-judicial confession-

Sec. 25 (Confession to Police)

Under Sec. 25, “No confession made to a police officer can be proved as against an accused”. The object of it is to prevent the practice of oppression or torture by the police for the purpose of extracting confessions from accused persons. Section 25 is very widely worded.

Section 25 is to exclude all confessional statements made by the accused to the police officer under in circumstances while he is in custody of the police except as is provided in Section 27. Thus, A confessional statement made by the accused to the police officer during and after investigation under section 162, Cr. PC is not admissible.

Section 25 merely forbids the use of confession in criminal cases, but not in civil suit. Admission made to a police officer may be accepted as an admission in civil proceedings under sections 17, 18, 21 of the Evidence Act.

Case Laws :

Queen Empress v Babu Lal (1884) LR 6 All 509: Wherein it has been said that the object of the rule is to prevent the extortion of confessions by police officers who in order to gain credit by securing convictions go to the length of positive torture.

If confessions to police were allowed to be proved in evidence, the police would torture the accused and thus force him to confess to a crime which he might not have committed. A confession so obtained would naturally be unreliable. It would not be voluntary. Such a confession will be irrelevant whatever may be its form, direct, express, implied or inferred from conduct.

A series of conflicting suggestions as to the rational underlying this inflexible statutory bar emerges from the decided cases:

1. An objective and dispassionate attitude cannot confidently be expected from police officers.
2. The privilege against self-incrimination has been thought to lie at the root of the principle.
3. Importance has been attached to the discouragement of abuse of authority by the police that could erode the fundamental rights of the citizen. The risk is great that the police will accomplish behind their closed doors precisely what the demands of our legal order forbid.

Effect of police presence – Where the confession is being given to someone else and the policeman is only casually present and overhears it that will not destroy the voluntary nature of the confession. But where that person is a secret agent of the police deputed for the very purpose of receiving a confession, it will suffer from the blemish of being a confession to police.

In Sita Ram v State15 (AIR 1966 SC 1906): The accused left a letter recording his confession near the dead body of the victim with the avowed object that it should be discovered by the police. The Supreme Court held that the confession is relevant, as it is not a confession made to a police officer under Sec. 25. The letter was addressed to the police officer, but the officer was not nearby when the letter was written, or knew that it was being written.

Confessional FIR – Only that part of a confessional First Information Report is admissible which does not amount to a confession or which comes under the scope of Sec. 27. The non-confessional part of the FIR can be used as evidence against the informant accused as showing his conduct under Section 8.

Who is police officer – A police officer not only includes a member of the regular police force, but would include any person who is clothed with the powers of a police officer viz. a chowkidar, a village headman, a home guard, etc. Thus, excise inspectors are held to be police officers, but not the custom officers or an officer under the FERA or a member of the Railway Protection Force.

Sec. 26 (Confession in Police Custody)

Rational of Inadmissibility of confessions in Police Custody ?

Under Sec. 26, “No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person”. The section will come into play when the person in police custody is in conversation with any person other than a police officer and confesses to his guilt. The section is based on the same fear, namely, that the police would torture the accused and force him to confess, if not to the police officer himself, at least to someone else. Thus the confession is likely to suffer from the blemish of not being free and voluntary.

Explanation : Here the term “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions, unless he is exercising the power of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882.

The word custody does not mean formal custody, but includes such state of affairs in which the accused can be said to have come into the hands of a police-officer or can be said to have been under some sort of surveillance or restriction. Police custody means police control even if be exercised in a home, in an open place or in the course of a journey and not necessarily in the walls of a prison (actual arrest). The immediate presence of police officers is not necessary, so long as the accused persons are aware that the place where they are detained is really accessible to the police. A temporary absence of the policeman makes no difference.

The following confessions are, thus, held to be irrelevant:

Emperor v Jagia AIR 1938 Pat 308:

A woman arrested for the murder of a young boy was left in the custody of villagers while the chowkidar (watchman) who arrested her left for the police-station and she confessed in his absence

R. vs Lester, ILR (1895) 20 Bom 165

While the accused being carried on a tonga was left alone by the policeman in the custody of the tonga-driver and he told of his criminality to the tonga driver.

Emperor v Mallangowda (1917) 19 Bom. LR 683

Where the accused was taken to a doctor for treatment, the policeman standing outside at the door, the accused confessed to the doctor18.

• A confession made to a person, while in police custody; overheard by a police officer.
• A confession to fellow-prisoners, while in jail.

Case Laws:

State of A.P. v Gangula Satya Murthy (1997) 1 SCC 2721:

If the confession was made when the accused was nowhere near the precincts of a police station or during the surveillance of the police, such confession held not to be hit by Sec. 26. The accused made his confession to two persons of the locality. Later, his confession was reduced to writing inside the police station on the accused being brought there. The Supreme Court said that such extra-judicial confession was not hit by Sec. 26.

 Confession when relevant (Section 27-29)

 Following three types of confessions are relevant and admissible.

1. Section 27: How much of Information received from accused may be proved.
2. Section 28: Confession made after removal of threat, inducement, etc.
3. Section 29: Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy.

Section 27: How much of Information received from accused may be proved. Section 27 of Evidence Act then provides “Provided that when any fact is deposed as discovered inconsequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of police officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to confession or not as relates distinctly to the facts thereby discovered, may be proved”.

Under evidence act, there are two situations in which confession to police are admitted in evidence :

1. When the statement is made in the immediate presence of magistrate
2. When the statement leads to discovery of fact connected with the crime.
   Section 27 is backed up by the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of a fact, it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted.
   Requirements Under The Section- the conditions necessary for the application of section 27 are:

1. 1. 1. The fact must have been discovered in the consequence of the information received from the accused.
      2. The person giving the information must be accused of an offence.
      3. He must be in custody of a police officer.
      4. That portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible.
      5. Before the statement is proved, somebody must depose that articles were discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused. In the example given above, before the statement of the accused could be proved, somebody, such a sub-inspector, must depose that in consequence of the given information given by the accused, some facts were discovered.
      6. The fact discovered must be a relevant fact, that is, to say it must relate to the commission of the crime in question.

         Normally, the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment some object e.g. a dead body, a weapon or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused. The ‘discovery of fact includes the object found, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence.

Case Laws:

Heramba Brahma vs State of Assam AIR 1982 SC 1595:

Held – that the extra judicial confession not trustworthy and cannot be used for corroboration of any other Evidence.

Chittar vs State of Rajasthan 1994 Cr.L.J 249 SC:

Held that where confessional statement is inconsistent with medical evidence, conviction of the accused solely based on extra judicial confession is not a proper.

Sita Ram vs. State AIR 1966 SC 1906:

The accused was convicted of murder by trial court. One of the items of evidence being a confessional letter written by the accused and left near the dead body with the intention of being seen by police officer.  The Supreme Court, by majority, held:

• “It is not a confession made to a Police Officer coming within the ban of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
• The Police Officer was not nearby when the letter was written, or knew that it was being written.
• In such circumstances the letter would not be a confession to a Police Officer even though it was addressed to the police officer.”

In Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, it was held by Supreme Court that section 27 of evidence act was enacted as proviso to. The provisions of sections of Section 25 and 26, which imposed a complete ban on admissibility of any confession made by accused either to police or at any one while in police custody. Nonetheless the ban would be lifted if the statement is distinctly related to discovery of facts. The object of making provision in section 27 was to permit a certain portion of statement made by an accused to Police Officer admissible in evidence whether or not such statement is confessional or non confessional. 

Surendera Prasad v State of Bihar, 1992 Cr LJ 2190:

The statements admissible under Sec. 27 are not admissible against persons other than the maker of the statement The discovery must be made by the police as a result of information given by the accused and not by any other source.

State of Rajasthan v Bhup Singh (1997) 10 SCC 675:

Statements made by the accused in connection with an investigation in some other case which lead to the discovery of a fact are also relevant.

Inayatulla v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 483 

It was observed by Supreme Court that Section 24, 25 and 26 exclude confession under certain circumstance. Section 24 lays down that if the confession appears to have been caused by threat, or promise, or inducement, it cannot be proved. Section 25 lays down that confession made to the police officer cannot be proved against an accused. Section 26 lays down that a confession made by any person while in custody of a police officer to any person other than a Magistrate will not be proved. Section 27 is a proviso, that is, a controlling Section and furnishes an exception to the Rule of excluding the confession. It lays down that a confession is admissible if :

• It leads to the discovery of some fact.
• Discovery of such fact must be deposed to or related to offence committed.
• At the time of the receipt of the information the accused must be in Police Custody.

State of Maharashtra v Damu (AIR 2000 SC 1691):

It was held that Subsequent to the discovery of a dead body from a canal, a statement was made by the accused to the investigating officer that the dead body was carried by him and the co-accused on the latter’s motorcycle and thrown into the canal. Broken glass pieces were recovered by the investigating officer from the spot and they were found to be part of the missing tail lamp of the motor cycle of the co-accused. On this basis the investigating officer can be said to have discovered the fact that the accused carried the dead body to the canal on the motor cycle of the co-accused. Held that in view of the said discovery of the fact the information supplied by the accused that the dead body was carried on his motor cycle up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. The information proves the prosecution case to the above mentioned extent.

State of Maharashtra v. Bharat  Lal Raghani:

It was held by Supreme Court that, the fact that seized weapons were displayed by police in press conference was not a ground to disbelieve the factum of recovery.

Co-relation between Section 27 and Article 20(3) of the constitution.

Ashish Jain vs. Makrand Singh, AIR 2019 SC 546- The following points may be culled out from the judgment:

1. 162, 163 and 164 Cr. P.C., 1973 lay down procedural safeguards in respect of statements made by persons during the course of investigation. However, S. 27 of the Evidence Act incorporates the “theory of confirmation by subsequent facts” i.e. statements made in custody are admissible to the extent that they can be proved by the subsequent discovery of facts.
2. It is quite possible that the content of the custodial statements could directly lead to the subsequent discovery of relevant facts rather than their discovery through independent means. Hence such statements could also be described as those which “furnish a link in the chain of evidence” needed for a successful prosecution.
3. Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial statements in the ordinary course of events. In Indian law, there is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion. However, in circumstances where it is shown that a person was indeed compelled to make statements while in custody, relying on such testimony as well as its derivative use will offend Article 20(3).
4. The relationship between Section 27 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution was clarified in Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808.

The rationale of Ss. 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act is that police may procure a confession by coercion or threat. The exception postulated Us 27 of the Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the discovery of some new fact.

The rationale behind S. 27 of the Evidence Act is, that the facts in question would have remained unknown but for the disclosure of the same by the accused. The discovery of facts itself, therefore, substantiates the truth of the confessional statement. And since it is truth that a court must endeavour to search, S. 27 aforesaid has been incorporated as an exception to the mandate contained in Ss. 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

Section 28 Confession made after removal of threat, inducement, etc.

If such a confession as is referred to in Sec. 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”.

Sec. 28 deals with the validity of confession which is made after the effect of inducement is already over. Once the mind is set free from the fear created by threats of evil or from the hopes of advantage from confessing (e.g. by lapse of time), any confession made is likely to be free and voluntary and there can hardly be any objection as to its validity.

Thus, a confession which is rendered irrelevant under Sec. 24 may become relevant under Sec. 28.

Section 29 :Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.

If a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant, merely because it was made –

• Under a promise of secrecy, or
• In consequences of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or
• when the accused was drunk, or
• In answer to questions he need not have answered (whatever may have been the form of the question), or
• When the accused was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession and that evidence of it might be given against him (except in judicial confessions, under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C.).

In criminal cases, the public interest lies in prosecuting criminals and not compromising with them. Therefore, where an accused person is persuaded to confess by assuring him of the secrecy of his statements or that evidence of it shall not be given against him, the confession is nevertheless relevant.

Where the confession is the outcome of a fraud being played with the accused, it is nevertheless relevant. Thus, where the two accused persons were left in a room where they thought they were all alone, but secret tape recorders were recording their conversation, the confessions thus recorded were held to be relevant. A confession secured by intercepting and opening a letter has also been held to be relevant. A confession obtained by intoxicating the accused is equally relevant. The law is concerned to see that the confession is free and voluntary and if this is so it does not matter that the accused confessed under the influence of drink.

Case Laws

Rangappa Hanamppa v. State, AIR 1954 Bom 285 :

The Court held Section 29 assumes that there is no bar to the admissibility of the confession in question arising from any of the earlier provision i.e. from Section 24 to 26 and it then proceeds to invalidate or negative other positive objections or bars that may be raised against its admissibility.

Section 30 : Confession by co-accused

Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act provide that “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.”

Proved confession by one of the accused in a joint trial :

• 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,
• Then, 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 Sec-30, includes the abatement of, or attempt to commit, the offence.

Illustrations : 

• A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C.  Here, If it is proved that A said – “B and I murdered C”, then court may consider the effect of this confession as against B. 
• A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is an evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B. There is NO joint trial. B said, “A & I murdered C”. • Here, B’s statement may NOT be taken into consideration by the Court against A because B is not being jointly tried.

When more than one person are being jointly tried for one and the same offences they are called co-accused. Any one of them is at liberty to confess his own guilt and can make statements against others/co accused. But such confession will be admissible against him and others provided conditions laid in section 30 are fulfilled.

In Prakash Dhawal Khairnar v State of Maharastra it was held that confessional statement of one accused recorded under section 164, Cr. PC by a magistrate would be admissible against the other accused as both were jointly tried. If the confession is not recorded by the magistrate under section 164, Cr. PC it may be used under section 30 of the Evidence Act if they are not regulated by Section 24 of this Act.

Retracted Confession:

A retracted confession is a statement made by an accused person before the trial begins by which he admits to have committed the offence but which he repudiates at the trial. When a confession is retracted the fact of such retraction has a bearing on the question whether it is voluntary or true and for deciding whether the retracted confession was voluntary or not,  court shall consider all attendant factors which throw a light on the nature of the confession such as :

• Reason given by accused for giving the confession;
• Circumstances alleged by accused which throw doubt on voluntary nature of confession such as inducement, threat or pressure from police;
• Material discrepancies between testimony of eyewitness and contents of confession;
• Peculiar facts and circumstances under which accused made confession.

The S.C. has held had held that a Retracted confession may form the basis of a conviction, IF it receives some general corroboration from other independent evidence. If the court finds that the confession originally recorded was voluntary, it should be acted upon.

Evidentiary value of Retracted Confession:

It is unsafe to base conviction on a retracted confession unless it is corroborated by trustworthy evidence.

A confession is considered the best and most conclusive evidence, as no person will make an untrue statement against his own interest. It is well settled that a confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt.

However, it must be noted that the evidential value of a confession is not very great. As observed by Best, a confession may be ‘false due to mental aberration, mistake of law, to escape physical or moral torture, to escape ignominy of a stifling enquiry, due to vanity, to endanger others by naming them as co-offenders, and so on. Therefore, confessions may not always be true.

When a person, having once recorded a confession which is relevant, goes back upon it at the trial, saying either that he never confessed or that he wrongly confessed or confessed under pressure, that is called a retracted. confession.

Where an extrajudicial confession was recorded by the village assistant in the presence of the village administrative officer; the accused made no reference to the confession in his statement recorded by the C.J.M. under Sec. 164, Cr.P.C. and only said that he was innocent and had not committed any offence, it was held that this could not be called a retraction of the confession Pakkirisamy v State of T.IN. (1997) 8 SCC 158

The Supreme Court has held that retraction is too insufficient a reason for overruling a confession (State of T.N. v Kutty AIR 2001 SC 2778). A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made. In the case of a retracted confession, one has only to find out whether the earlier statement which was the result of repentance, remorse and contrition was voluntary and true or not and it is with that object that corroboration is sought for.

Sahoo v State of U.R. (AIR 1966 SC 40), It was held that there is clear distinction between the admissibility of evidence and the weight to be attached to it. The court must apply a double test: (1) whether the confession was perfectly voluntary, (2) if so, whether it is true and trustworthy. The court should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. If the confession appears to be a probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in with the rest of the evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it may be relied on.

In State of Maharashtra v. P.K. Pathak AIR 1980 SC 1224 Supreme Court held `It is settled that as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into Rule of law, a retracted confession cannot be made solely the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated in material term “

In Sakha Ram v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1994 SC 1594 It was held by Supreme Court that it will settled that the retracted extra judicial confession though a piece of evidence on which reliance can be placed but the same has to be corroborated by independent witness and that apart the court must be satisfied that confession alleged to have been made was true and voluntary one.

Difference between Admission and Confession:

Thus, a court shall not base a conviction on such a confession without a general corroboration from independent evidence (Piyare Lal vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1963 SC 1094). Even if a confession is inculpatory, corroboration is necessary if the confession is retracted. The court can take into consideration retracted confession against the confessing accused and his co-accused.

The court upheld a conviction based on a retracted confession because it became supported by discovery of smuggled articles from different places of concealment (State vs. Madhukar Keshav Maity AIR 1980.

Conclusion

Sections 24, 25, 26 and relevant part of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with condition that when can confession be irrelevant. Section 24 lays down that if the confession appears to have been caused by threat, or promise, or inducement, it cannot be proved. Section 25 lays down that confession made to the police officer cannot be proved against an accused. Section 26 lays down that a confession made by any person while in custody of a police officer to any person other than a Magistrate will not be proved. Section 27 is a proviso, that is, a controlling Section and furnishes an exception to the Rule of excluding the confession. It lays down that a confession is admissible if it leads to the discovery of some fact. Section 30 deals with confession by co-accused.