EVIDENCE ASSIGNMENT ON

CONFESSION BY THREAT OR INDUCEMENT

SECTION- 24 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,1872

SUBMITTED BY, SUBMITTED TO,

MEHVISH FATIMA

B.A.LL.B(HONS)
CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. Forms of confession
3. Section 24
4. Essentials of section 24
INTRODUCTION
The term “confession” is nowhere defined in India Evidence Act, 1872. The
word “confession” appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. This section comes under the heading of “admission” so it
is clear that the confessions are mere species of admission. All the provisions
relating to confessions occur under the heading of “admission.” This shows the
legislative intent of not distinguishing between an “admission” and a
“confession”, so far as at least definition is concerned. The definition of
“admission” as given in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 becomes
applicable to confession also. Section 17 of the Act defines “admission” as “a
statement oral or documentary, which suggests any inference as to any fact in
issue or relevant fact.” If such a statement is made by a party to civil
proceedings it will be called an “admission” and if it is made by a party charged
with a crime or to criminal proceedings it will be called a “confession”. Thus, in
terms of the Act, a confession is a statement made by a person charged with
crime suggesting an inference as to any facts in issue or as to relevant facts.[1]
Mr. Justice Stephen in his Digest of the Law of Evidence defined confession as
“confession is an admission made at any time by person charged with a crime
stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.” According
to this definition a statement of an accused will amount to a confession if it
fulfills any of the

following two conditions:

1) If he states that he committed the crime he is charged with, or

2) If he makes a statement by which he does not clearly admit the guilt, yet
from the statement some inference may be drawn that he might have
committed the crime.In Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, Lord Atkin
observed: “A confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a
gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not in itself
a confession. The definition is not contained in the Indian Evidence Act and in
that Act it would not be consistent with the natural use of language to
construe confession as a statement by an accused suggesting the inference
that he committed the crime.”1

FORM OF CONFESSION

Confession may be divided into two categories:-

1) Judicial confession, and

2) Extra-Judicial confession

Judicial Confession

Judicial confessions are those confessions which are made before a Magistrate
or in Court in the due course of legal proceedings. Judicial confession has been
defined to mean “plea of guilty on arrangement (before a tribunal). Judicial
confessions should be distinguished from extrajudicial confessions. It may be
doubted whether a conviction can be based solely upon an extra-judicial
confession but there is no reason for hesitating to base conviction on a judicial
confession.[5] A confessional statement made by the accused before a
Magistrate or a Court is a good piece of evidence and the accused can be
convicted or punished on the basis of this judicial confession.

Extra-Judicial Confession

Extra-judicial confessions are those confessions which are made by the

accused anywhere else than before a Magistrate or in Court and extra-judicial
confession can be made to any particular person or to a group of persons. It is
not necessary that the statements should have been addressed to any definite
individual. It may have taken place in the form of a prayer. A confession to a

1
Taylor on evidence 592,1st edition
private person is extra-judicial.[9] For extra-judicial confession communication
to another is not an essential component to constitute ‘statement’.[10] The
evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and so it
should be taken with great care and caution. In State of Punjab v. Bhagwan
Singh,[11] it was held by Supreme Court that extra-judicial confession can be
relied on only when it is clear consistent and convincing. In Balwinder Singh v.
State,[12] the Supreme Court held that in case of extra-judicial confession, the
credibility of the person before whom the confession is made, shall be tested
and the court has to see whether the person is trustworthy or not.

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 24 of the Act deals with confession caused by inducement, threat or
promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding. It provides that 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 accused by any
inducement, threator 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 temporal nature in reference to the proceeding
against him. The conditions of irrelevancy under the section are:[15] The
confession must be the result of inducement, threat or promise;Inducement,
etc. should proceed from a person in authority; It should relate to the charge in
question; It should hold out some worldly benefit or disadvantage.

When these conditions are present the confession is irrelevant.

1)Inducement, threat or promise A confession can only be admitted if it is

voluntary, and one obtained by inducement, threat or promise held out by a
person in authority is not to be admitted. Inducement, threat or promise need
not be express, but may be implied from the conduct of the person in
authority, the declarations of the accused, or the circumstances of the case.2
The appropriate meaning of the word “appears” is “seems”. It imports a lesser
degree of probability than proof. The standard of a prudent man is not
completely displaced, but the stringent rule of proof is relaxed. It is not
2
Reg v. Gillis, (1866),
necessary to prove strictly that a confession was brought about by proper
inducement. It is quite sufficient to exclude the confession, if circumstances
are placed before the Court, which would make it appear that the confession
was so induced.3An inducement to confess may be upon a promise of pardon.
A promise or threat made to one accused will not render a confession made by
another, who was present and heard the inducement, irrelevant.4

2) Person in authority The second requirement is that the inducement, threat

or promise should proceed from a person in authority. Who is a person in
authority? The expression “person in authority” definitely refers to
government officials. Every government official will be person in authority
about whom the accused thinks that he is capable of influencing the course of
prosecution.[20] Even a Village Mukhiya, Pradhan of village or even a peon can
be considered to be person in authority. In Reg v. Navroji Dadabhai,5W, a
travelling auditor in the services of the G.I.P. Railway Co., having discovered
defalcations in the accounts of the accused, who was a booking clerk of the
Co., went to him and told him that, “he had better pay the money than go to
jail”, and added that “ it would be better for him to tell the truth”, after which
the accused was brought before the Traffic Manager in whose presence he
signed a receipt for, and admitted having received a certain sum. The accused
was subsequently put on his trial for criminal breach of trust. It was held that
the words used by W, constituted an inducement to the accused to confess,
and that W was a ‘person in authority’ and, therefore, evidence was
inadmissible. Where an army sepoy confessed to his senior and the confession
was found to be voluntary and the officer was not inimical to him it was held a
valid confession.

3) Inducement, threat or promise should be in reference to charge

Thirdly, the inducement, threat or promise should be in reference to the

charge in question. This specifically so stated in the section itself which says
that the inducement, threat or promise must have “reference to the charge
against the accused person”. Thus, it is necessary for the confession to be
exclude from evidence that the accused should labour under influence that in

3
Emperor v. Thakur Das Maalo, (1943)
4
Reg v. Jacobs (1894)
5
(1872) 9 BHC 358
reference to the charge in question his position would be better or worse
according as he confesses or not. Inducements in reference to other offences
or matters or offences committed by others will not affect the validity of the
confession. 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.6 While this is the principle under Section 24 of the Act,
the position of English law is not so clear. After making a thorough
investigation of all the prior authorities and opinions of authors in
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v. Hartz and Power,7the House of Lords
found that neither the authorities nor opinions of authors were consistent and,
therefore, came to the conclusion that it is not necessary for a confession to be
excluded from evidence that the inducement should relate only to the charge
in question. Even so it was held that the confession was not admissible. Lord
Reid considered authorities. His Lordship noted the following passage from
Taylor on Evidence[24] “it may be laid down as a general rule that in order to
exclude a confession the inducement whether it be in the shape of a promise,
a threat or mere advice must have reference to the prisoners escape from the
criminal charge against him.” A similar opinion is expressed by Stephen. He
says that “the inducement must have reference to the charge against the
accused person. His Lordship then pointed out that the learned author has
drawn this inference from cases which do not warrant it. The most striking is
Rex v. Llyod.8There the inducement was that the jailor would let that prisoner
see his wife, and Patterson, J., without giving any reason, held that, that did
not make the confession inadmissible to the point. Shutter in our view
inducement will not vitiate a confession when the proffered benefit has no
bearing on the course of the prosecution and on this point the text book
writers speak with one voice.

4) Benefit of temporal nature

The last condition for Section 24 to come into play is that the inducement,
threat or promise must be such as is sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to
give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for
6
Emperor v. Mohan Lal, (1881) ILR 4 All 46
7
(1967) 1 A.C. 760
8
(1834) 6 C. & P. 393
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. Thus
the evil which is threatened to him or the benefit which is promised to him
must be of material, worldly or temporal nature. A perfectly innocent
expression, coupled with acts or conduct on the part of the person in authority
together with the surrounding circumstances may amount to inducement,
threat or promise. It does not turn upon as to what may have been the precise
words used but in each case whatever the words used may be it is for the
judge to consider whether the words used were such as to convey to the mind
of the person addressed an intimation that it will be better for him to confess
that he committed the crime or worse for him if he does not. The expression,
“whatever you say will be used as evidence against you” will not exclude a
confession. On the other hand “you better pay the money than go to jail”, “if
you tell me where my goods are I will be favourable to you”, “I will get you
released if you tell me the truth”, have been held to be sufficient to give the
accused grounds for supposing that by making the confession he would gain an
advantage or avoid an evil.

In Nirmal Mohan v State of Assam: The Hon’ble High Court after noticing
sequences of recording of confessional statements concluded that it was made
duly and voluntarily. Before a conviction can be a basis of conviction the court
has to come to conclusion that the confession was made voluntarily.” A
confession is involuntary when it is made to a police officer or confession given
by the accused when he was in police custody. In both cases the confessions
are not relevant and cannot be proved under sections 25 and 26 of the
Evidence Act. In certain situation the extra-judicial confession or confession
made after seizure of documents from accuser’s premises are valid.