Confession under Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The word ‘confession’ has not been defined under the Act. According to Privy Council, “A confession is a
statement made by an accused which must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially
all the facts which constitute the offence 1.” An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a
conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself a confession 2. The confession is a form of admission
consisting of direct acknowledgement of guilt in a criminal charge. It must be in express words by the
accused in a criminal case of the truth of the guilt fact charged or some essential part of it and a
statement that contains a self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to confession. The confession should
be a voluntary one that means not caused by inducement, threat or promise. Whether a confession is
voluntary or not is essentially a question of fact 3. According to Lord Wigmore, “A confession is an
acknowledgement in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the guilty fact
charged or of some essential part of it. It is to this class of statements only that the present principle of
exclusion applies4.”
A close scrutiny of the sections 17 to 30 of the Act, discloses that the statement is the genus, admission
is the species and confession is the sub-species 5. Sir James Stephen in his “digest of the Law of Evidence”
defined confession: “As an admission made at the time by a person charged with the crime stating or
suggesting the inference that he committed a crime” The acid test which distinguishes a confession from
an admission is that when conviction can be based on a statement alone, it is a “Confession and where
some supplementary evidence is required to authorize a conviction, then it is admission” 6. The word
“statement” includes both oral and written statement. Communication to another is not however an
essential component to constitute a “statement”.
Section 164 of CrPC 1973 lays down procedure of recording of confession.
It is a general rule of criminal law that no confession is admissible, unless it is shown to have been a
voluntary statement in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear, or prejudice, or
hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority 7. It is the duty of the court to see
whether the confession is voluntary or not, and the burden of proof lies on prosecution. Even most
gentle threats or slightest inducement, or hope of advantage to the accused will taint a confession.
1
Pakala Narayan Swami vs Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47; (1965) 3 SCR 80; Veera Ibrahim v State of Maharashtra,
AIR 1976 SC 1167.
2
Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354
3
Shankar v State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 4 SCC 478.
4
Khageswar Khatna v State, 1993 Cr LJ 2374 (Ori).
5
Sahoo v. State of U.P. AIR 1966 S.C. 42; Confessions and its various dimensions
(http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7860/11/11_chapter%204.pdf.
6
Ram Singh v. State, All. L.J. 660 1958. All. C.R. 462.
7
Dr Satish Chandra, Indian Evidence Act ( 3rd ed, Allahabad Law Agency 2005).
Therefore, an unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence and free from suspicion of falsity is a
valuable piece of evidence possessing a high probative force 8.
In India, the substantive law of confession is contained in sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, while
the adjective law is found in sections 163, 164, 364, 533 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Sections 24 to 26 lay down when the confessions are not relevant i.e. provable. While sections 27 to 29
are limitations to their operation. Section 24 excludes confessions obtained by inducement, etc. Section
25 bars all confessions made to police officers under any circumstances, whether voluntary or
involuntary, while section 26 shuts out confessions made in police custody, except those made in the
presence of the Magistrate
8
CJ M.Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence (9th ed, Universal Law Publishing 2013).
