CONFESSIONS—Sections 24-30

Introduction:

• Confession, like admission, is an exception the rule of hearsay evidence.(UP Lower-2002)
• Sections 24 to 30 deal with confession. Confession is nowhere defined in the Act.
• Every confession is an admission but not vice-versa. Confession is an admission of guilt by an accused. It may be oral or written.
• Confession need not to be communicated to some other person. Conversation to oneself overheard by another is also confession.
• In Pakla Narayan Swami case (1939) the Privy Council held that confessional statement must be inculpatory & not self-exculpatory.

Further in Palvinder Kaur’s case (1952) it was held that if the confessional statement is both the inculpatory & ex-culpatory it must be accepted or rejected as a whole.(UPJ-2006).

However in Nishi Kant Jha’s case (1959) the SC held that rejection or acceptance of confessional statement as a whole is not necessary. The court accepted the culpatory statement & rejected the ex-culpatory statement.

But again in Lokman Shah’s case (2001) view taken in Palvinder’s case was revived.

Forms of Confession:

Confession may be judicial confession—

• Judicial Confession(JC)—JC is confession to the court itself. JC is a good piece of evidence
• Extra-judicial confession(EJC)—EJC is a confession to anybody outside the court. EJC is a weak kind of evidence & has to be used with great caution. Sahoo vs. State of U.P. (1966:SC) is a leading case on EJC.

What Confessions are not Relevant:

All the confessional statements are not relevant. Sections 24, 25 and 26 deal with those confessional statements which are not relevant:

• Section 24—Induced Confession i.e. Confession caused by threat, inducement, or promise are not relevant.(TIP). (UKJ-2002)
• Section 25—Confession to police—(Inadmissible)
• Section 25 provides that confession made to police is not admissible. (MPAPO-2008/ UPHJS-2009).
• In Queen Impress vs. Babulal,(Allahabad) it was held that confessional statement before police is not admissible. (JCJ-2008)
• Person clothed with police dress is also presumed as police officer. Thus village headman & home guard are police officer & confession made to them are not admissible.
• Section 26—Confession in police custody in presence of Magistrate—
• Section 26 deals with the confession made in police custody.
• Section 26 provides that confession made by any person in police custody will not be relevant unless it is made in the immediate presence of the Magistrate. (UPAPO-2002)
• The word custody does not mean formal custody and actual arrest. What is important is there must be control of the police upon the movement of the accused & the accused is accessible to the police. A temporary absence of the policeman makes no difference.
• However there is one exception to section 26. Accordingly, if the accused confesses in police custody in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, the confession will be valid. The Magistrate must be present in the same room where confession is being recorded.
• A confession made in judicial custody or lock up will be relevant, even if the policemen are guarding the accused. Thus following confession was held to be irrelevant:
  • A confession to the fellow-prisoner while in jail.
  • A confession made to a police officer, while in police custody, overheard by a police officer.
  • Where the accused to taken to a doctor, the policeman standing outside the door, the accused confessed to the doctor.

Confessions which are Relevant:

The following types of confessions are relevant & admissible:

• Section 27—
• Section 27 provides that any confessional statement that lead to discovery of fact is relevant.(MPJ-1983).
• The constitutional validity of Section 27 was challenged on the ground of violative of Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. However, the SC uphold the constitutional validity of Section 27 in the following cases. (UKJ-2005) –
• State of UP vs. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960: SC)
• State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu (1961:SC)—In the refereed case, the SC held that compelling a person to give his specimen writing will not amount to testimonial compulsion for the purpose of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
• Thus, section 27 is an exception to sections 24, 25 & 26 and it was so held in Inayatullah vs. State of Maharashtra (1976). (UPJ-2006)
• Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor (1947) is a leading case on the point. For eg. A says he concealed a knife at a place with which he stabbed B. Here statement “he concealed the knife” is admissible and not “with which I stabbed B”.
• In Sahoo vs. State of UP (1966) the SC held that self-communication also amounts to confession and the disclosure of confessional statement to other person is not necessary. (UPAPO-2005)
• In State of Punjab vs. Barkatram it was held that confessional statement before the custom officer is not relevant. (JCJ-2008)
• Section 28—Confession made after removal of threat, inducement etc is relevant.(UP Lower-2003)
• Section 29—Releancy of confession made under promise of secrecy—Section 29 clearly provides that a confession otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practiced 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.(MPAPO-2008)

________________________________________________________

[1].What is confession? What are the relating provisions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? What are inculpatory & ex-culpatory confession? Can a court convict an accused by accepting the inculpatory part & rejecting the exculpatory part of confession. Distinguish b/w judicial & extra-judicial confession. What is the evidentiary value of confession made in police custody (BJS 2000). Distinguish b/w admission & confession.(BJS:1987)

_________________________________________________

Prepared by team LegalMines. The copyright as to contents and style are with the LegalMines.