General Principles

Of
Confessions
(Sections 24-30)

Submitted To: Dr. Sabina Salim

U.I.L.S.

Submitted By: Dilraj S. Bhinder

125/10

Introduction
The substantive law relating to Confessions is contained in sections
24-30 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the adjective law is contained in

Sections 164,281 and 463 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Sections 2426 lay down when confessions are not relevant i.e., provable. While sections 2729 are limitations to their operation.
Confessions are received in evidence in criminal cases upon the same
principle on which admissions are received in civil cases, namely,
The presumption that a person will not make an untrue statement against
his own interest.
A man of sound mind and full age, who makes a statement in ordinary
simple language and has not been victim of malpractices, threat or
inducement in making such statement, must be bound by the language of
statement and by its ordinary plain meaning and the act spoken of must
be given its legal consequence.

Definition
The term confession is nowhere defined in the Evidence Act. All the
provisions relating to confessions occur in the heading admission. This shows
the legislative intent of not distinguishing between and admission and
confession, so far at least definition is concerned. The definition of
admission as given in section 17 becomes applicable to confession also.
Section 17 defines admission as a statement oral or documentary,
which suggest any inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact. If such a
statement is made by a party to civil proceeding it will be called an admission
and if it is made by a party charged with a rime it will be called a confession.
Thus, in terms of the act, a confession s a statement made by a person charged
with a crime suggesting an inference as to any facts in issue or as o relevant
1

facts. The inference that the statement should suggest should be that he is gilty
of crime.
According to Stephens Digest of the Law of Evidence A confession is an
admission made at any time by a person charged with crime stating or
suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.
However in Pakala Narayan Swami vs. Emperor1the Privy Council did
not accept the definition for the purposes of Indian Evidence Act and observed
that a confession must either admit in the 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 itself a
confession, for example, an admission that the accused is the owner of and was
in recent possession of a knife or revolver which caused death with no
explanation of any other mans possession. The definition is not contained in
Evidence Act 1872, 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 crime
Conditions For relevancy of Confession
The following conditions must be satisfied for relevancy of a confession:
It must not be caused by inducement, threat or promise (Section 24)
It must not be made to a police officer (Section 25)
It must be made I immediate presence of a Magistrate when the accused
is in the custody of police officer (Section 26)
It must be made after impression, caused by any inducement, etc., has
been fully removed (Section 27)
The Confession of an accused is relevant only against himself, subject to
Section 30.
In Thimma vs. State of Mysore2 the honble Supreme Court held that an
unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence and free from suspicion of
falsity is a valuable piece of evidence possession a high probative force.

1 AIR 1939 P.C. 47

2 AIR 1971 SC 1871
2

Section 24
S24. 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
proceeding against him3.
PRINCIPLE: 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) proceeding 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
temporal nature in reference to proceeding against him.
In Man Bhadur Gurung vs. State of Sikkim4 the magistrate herself had satisfied
that there was no policeman in courtroom or in any place where proceedings
could be seen or heard and questions and answers showed that the accused was
prepared to make confessional statement and two days time was given to the
accused for reflection and the statement was recorded by the Magistrate after
3 Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act
4 2002(4) Crimes 1136
3

satisfying herself that the statement has been made by the accused voluntarily
such confessional statement cannot be said to be result of any duress, coercion
or inducement by the police or any other person.
OBJECT: This section is mainly integrated to safeguard the interest of the accused, on the
ground of pubic policy and for proper administration of justice. The Supreme
Court in Aher Raja Khima vs. State of Saurashtra 5observed that 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 voluntarily and
unless he realizes that he says may be used against him.
The Apex Court in Shankaria vs. State of Rajisthan6 observed that it is well
settled that a confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made, is an efficacious
proof of guilt. Therefore, when in capital case the prosecution demands a
conviction of the accused primarily on the basis of his confession recordedunder
Section 164 Cr.P.C. the court must apply a double test:
1. Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary?
2. If so, whether it was true and trustworthy?
Satisfaction of first evidence is sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence.
If the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement,
threat or promise, such as is mentioned in Section 24, Evidence Act, it must be
excluded and rejected bervi manu.In such a case, the question of proceeding
further to apply the second test does not arise. If the first test is satisfied, the
court must, before acting upon the confession, reach the finding that what is
stated in the therein is true and reliable. For judging the reliability of such a
confession or, for the matter, of any substantive piece of evidence, thereis no
rigid cannon of universal application. Even so, one broad method which may be
useful in most cases for evaluation of a confession may be indicated. The court
should carefully examine the confession and compare it with the rest of
evidence, in the light of the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of each
case.
Further this section place responsibility on the court. 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 temporal nature. The
5 AIR 1956 SC 217
6 AIR 1978 SC 1248
4

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 temporal nature with reference to
the charge against him7. Thus it can be seen that this section through its wording
has given the fullest discretion to the court to reject he alleged confession if it
entertains a suspicion.
ESSENTIALS OF A CONFESSION: Admissions and confessions are exception to the hearsay rule; they are placed in
the category of relevant evidence in Sections 17-30 presumably on the ground
that, being declarations against the interest of the person making them, they are
probably true. Their probable value does not depend upon their communication
to another, though, just like any other piece of evidence, they can be admitted in
evidence only on proof that can be offered by witness who heard the admission
or the confession, as the case may be. Before a confession is relied upon, it must
be clear and unequivocal, whether it is judicial or extra-judicial confession.
Before a confession can be accepted in evidence, it must be established
by cogent evidence what were the exact words used by the accused. Even if so
much is established, prudence and justice demands that such evidence cannot be
sole ground of conviction. It may used only as a corroborative piece of
evidence8.
Further confession must either admit in terms of offence, or at any rate
substantially all the acts, which constitute the offence. An admission of gravely
incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not itself a
confession. Also an admission of a fact, however incriminating, but not by itself
establishing the guilt of the maker of such admission, doesnot amount to a
confession within the meaning of Sections24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. A
statement made under section 164 Cr.P.C , which doesnot amount to a
confession, can be used against the maker as an admission with in purview of
Ss. 18-21. Further any confessional statement not relating to the alleged crime,
which is not the subject matter of the indictment, cannot be relevant under this
section and cannot be relied upon.
MADE BY AN ACCUSED: 7 Satbir Singh vs. State of Punjab/ AIR 1977 SC 1294
8 Saboo vs. State of UP/ AIR 1966 SC 40
5

The expression accused person in section 24 and the expression a

person accused of any offence in section 25 have the same connotation 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.
REFRENCE TO CHARGE AGAINST ACCUSED PERSON: Charge means a criminal charge or a charge of an offence in a criminal
proceeding. The inducement, threat, or promise, must be with reference to the
offence, with which the accused is charged.
PERSON IN AUTHORTY: The expression does not mean person-having control over the prosecution
of the accused. The test would seem to be, has the person authority to interfere
in the matter under enquiry as, for example, a person engaged in apprehension,
detention or prosecution of the accused, or who is empowered to examine him
and any concern or interest in it would be sufficient to give him that authority.
The belief of the accused that the persons to whom he made a confession were
persons in authority is not sufficient to bring him within the term.
A confession made to the recording officer of the Border Security Force
was held to be not voluntary. The accused had remained in detention for 3
months and was not permitted to meet anybody including his relatives9.
GROUNDS WHICH WOULD APPER TO HIM REASONALBE: The word apperar imprts judicial discretion. It shows that the court has to
decide the preliminary question of admissibility on a consideration of the
evidence and surrounding circumstances. The court to determine the sufficiency
of inducement, threat or promise as affording certain ground, to see whether the
ground would appear reasonable for the supposition mentioned in the section,
and to judge whether the confession appears to have been in consequence of the
inducement, threat or promise.
In King- Emperor vs. Akhilevashari Prashad10 it was observed that the
inducement must be of temporal type i.e. not spiritual or religious. Confessions
obtained by exhortations are admissible in evidence. A merely moral
exhortation to tell truth is not objectionable
9 Hardev Singh vs. Union of India/ 2000 Crlj 2585
10 (1925) 4 Pat 646
6

Section 25
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.
PRINCIPLE:Under this section a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in
evidence except in so far as proved by section 27. The principle upon which the
rejection of confession made by accused to a police officer, or while in custody
of such officer, 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.
In Queen Empress vs. Babulal11 it was observed that rules contained in
sections 25, 26, and 27 of the evidence act were not originally treated in British
India as, strictly speaking, rules of evidence, but rather as rules governing the
action of police officers, and as matters of criminal procedure. The Legislature
had in view malpractices of police officials in extorting confessions from
accused persons in order to gain credit by securing convictions, and those
malpractices went to the length of positive torture, the legislature, in laying
down such rules, regarded the evidence of police officers as untrustworthy, and
the object of the rule was to put a stop to the extortion of confession, by taking
away from the police officers the advantage of proving such extorted confession
during the trial of accused person.
SCOPE: The provision does not exclude all statements made to the police but only
confessions made by the accused. A statement even if it goes against the
accused is admissible if it does not amount to a confession. It is immaterial
whether the police officer to whom the confession is made is the officer
investigating the case or not. The fact that he is police officer is sufficient to
invalidate the confession; to whatever crime it may refer.
11 (1884) 6 All 509
7

OBJECT: In State of Gujrat vs. Anirudh Singh12the apex court laid down the object
of section 25 and stated that it is to ensure that the person accused of the offence
would not be induced by threat, coercion or force to make a confessional
statement and the officers would also make every effort to collect the evidence
of the commission of every crime de hors the confession to be extracted from
the accused while they are in custody of police.
POLICE OFFICER: The term should not be read in strict technical sense but according to its more
compressive and popular meaning. It applies to every police officer and is not
restricted to officers in regular police force.
In Rajaram vs. State of Bihar13 the Supreme Court observed that: The
test for determining whether a person is a police officer for the purpose of
section 25 of the Evidence Act would be whether the powers of a police officer
which are conferred on him or which are exercisable by him because he is
deemed to be officer in charge of a police station, establish a direct or
substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by section 25, that is,
recording of a confession. In other words, the test would be whether the powers
are such as would tend to facilitate the obtaining by him of a confession from a
suspect or a delinquent. If they do, then it is unnecessary to consider the
dominant purpose for which he is appointed or question as to what the other
powers he enjoys. These questions may perhaps be relevant for consideration
where the powers of a police officer confer upon him are of very limited
character and are not by themselves sufficient to facilitate the obtaining by him
of a confession.
Who are police officers: - The following officers are held as police officers
within the meaning of Section 25:
Excise Officer (Under Bihar and Orissa Act)
A Special Officer of the Commercial tax Department
An Officer appointed under the Bombay Sales Tax Act.
Security officer of H.E.C.
Officers of J.K. Rifels
Officers under Orissa Home Guard Act
12 AIR 1997 SC 2780
13 AIR 1964 SC 828
8

 Police Constable Guarding the Treasury

Village Administrative officer
CONFESSION BY WAY OF F.I.R:The evidence Act draws a distinction between statements, which amount to
confessions, and those, which are admissions falling short of confessions, and
statements of the latter kind are admissible unless they are hit by Section 162 of
Cr.P.C. further it was held in Aghnoo vs. State14 that where the accused gave
First Information to the police, the fact of his giving that information is
admissible under section 8. If it is a non-confessional one, it is admissible under
Section 21, but a confessional statement cannot be used against the accused
under Section 25, except to the extent it is permitted under section 27 of the
Evidence Act.

Section 26
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 is made in immediate presence of a
Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
PRINCIPLE: This section is a further extension of the principle laid down in section
25. The object is to prevent the abuse of the powers by the police. Under section
26 no confession made by a person in custody to nay person other than police
officer, shall be admissible unless made in immediate presence of a Magistrate.
The reason is that a person in custody of police is presumed to be under their
influence and it provides opportunities for offering inducement or extorting
confessions. The presence of the Magistrate secures the free and voluntary
nature of the confession and the confessing person has the opportunity of
making a statement uncontrolled by fear of police.
14 AIR 1966 SC 119
9

SCOPE: Section 25 applies to confessions made to the police. Section 26 governs

confessions while in police custody made to any person other than the police.
Hence section 25, and 26 do not lay down identical positions. They provide two
clear definite rules. Section 25 bars a confession made to Police Officer whether
the confessor is in the custody of the police or not, while Section 26 goes further
and enacts that the confession made to any person like a fellow- prisoner,
doctor, visitor etc, while the confessor is in the custody of the police, is
inadmissible unless made in presence of a Magistrate.
In Palka Narayan Swamy vs. The King Emperor 15the Privy Council
observed that a confession includes any statement made by any person whilst in
custody of the police and appears o apply to such statements to whomsoever
made eg. To fellow prisoner, a doctor or a visitor, Section 162 of Cr.P.C does not
cover such statements.
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, rather directly or indirectly cause
by the police, which may include arrest, detention, surveillance or any restraint
on his movement. It doesnt necessarily mean custody after formal arrest; it is
sufficient if there is some form of police surveillances, or restriction by the
police on the movement of the person concerned. Police custody extends to a
case where the accused is deemed to have submitted to custody of the police
officer, by submitting to the interrogation and making statement about discovery
and thereby ceases to be a free man. The words in custody which are to be
found in this and other sections of the act include surveillance or restriction on
the movements of the person concerned, which may be complete as, for
instance, in the case of an arrested person, or may be partial.
In Farman Shah vs. State16 the apex court held that in considering whether
an accused is in police custody when his confession is recorded, the crucial test
is whether at the time when the accused makes the confession he is a free man
or his movements are controlled by the police either by themselves or though
some other agency employed by them, for the purpose of securing the
confession. Even a temporary absence of policeman or police officer would not
terminate his custody and the accused shall be deemed to be in custody of the
police even in such circumstances.
15 AIR 1939 PC 47
16 1981 CrLJ SC
10

IMMIDIATE PRESENCE OF MAGISTRATE:A confession is admissible, if made to a magistrate or to a person other than
Police Officer but in the immediate presence of Magistrate, but it will be
inadmissible if it is made to a police officer eve in presence of a Magistrate. The
presence of a Magistrate rules out the possibility of torture thereby making the
confession free, voluntary and reliable. Further immediate presence of
Magistrate means his presence in the same room where the confession is being
recorded. His presence in the adjoining room cannot afford the same degree of
protection against torture17.
Further confession to a private person in presence of a police officer is also
barred by section 26. Also a statement made to the police and heard by a private
person cannot be regarded as an extra- judicial confession as this section hits it.

Section 27
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 from a person accused of any offence, in
17 Singh Avtar, Principles of the Law of Evidence, Central Law
Publications, 20th Edition
11

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.
PRINCIPLE: This section is founded on 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. It comes into operation only
1. If and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of
information received from an accused person in police custody; and
2. If the information relates distinctly to the facts discovered.
The broad ground for not admitting confessions made to a police officer
under inducement, threat or promise is the danger of admitting false
confessions, but the necessity for exclusion disappears in a case provided for by
this section when the truth of the confession is guaranteed by the discovery of
facts in consequence of information given.
The principle underlying this section was taken from the amended section
150, of the Criminal Procedure Code, under the Amendment Act, 8 of 1869.
When evidence Act was enacted in 1872, that section 150, Cr.P.C., was
transferred to the Evidence Act.
Under this section:
a) There must be information
b) It doesnot matter whether the information amounts to confession or
not
c) That the person must be in custody of police
d) In consequence of the information a fact must be deposed to as
discovered
e) In such a case so much of the information as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered may be proved.
Explaining the Scope of this section in general terms, their Lordships, in
Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor18, observed that Section 27, which is no
artistically worded, provides an exception to the prohibition imposed by
previous section, and enables certain statements made by a person in police
custody to be proved. The condition necessary to bring the section into
operation is that discovery of a fact in consequence of information received
from a person accused of any offence in custody of police officer must be
deposed to, and thereupon so much of information as relates distinctly to the
18 AIR 1947 PC 67
12

fact thereby discovered may be proved. The section seems to be based on the
view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of the information
given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that information is true and
accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. Normally this
section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from
some place of concealment some object, such as, a dead body, a weapon, or
ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is
accused.
In M.G. Thakore vs. State of Gujrat19the apex court observed that whether
a person is in custody or outside, a confession made by him to a police officer or
the making of which is procured by inducement, threat or promise, having
reference to the charge against him and proceeding from person in authority, is
not provable against him in any proceeding in which he is discharged with the
commission of an offence. Where in pursuance of the statement made by
accused on the specific question by the investigating officer stolen property was
discovered, the said statement of the accused could not be said to be volunteered
and was inadmissible in evidence.
In S.G. Niak vs. State of Maharashtra20 the accused allegedly stated that
the injuries sustained by him were caused due to dog bite and the evidence
showed that only one of those injuries was attribute to dog bite, still the
statement of the accused could not be used in evidence against him.
In Vikrim Singh vs. State of Punjab.21it was observed by the apex court
that the words accused of any offence under Section 27 would not operate
only after formal arrest under Section 46(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused persons
were in police custody at the time of recoveries on the basis of their disclosure
statements. Such recoveries could not be held to be not admissible under
Section 27.
DOCTRINE OF CONFIRMATION: In State of Karnatka vs. David Razario22 the Honble Supreme Court observed
that the basic idea embedded in this section is the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that, if any fact is
discovered as a search made on strength of any information obtained from
prisoner, such discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the
19
20
21
22

1993 CrLJ 730

1999 CrLJ 471
AIR 2010 S.C. 1007
AIR 2002 SC 3272
13

prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-culpatory in

nature if it results in discovery of fact, it becomes reliable information.
CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR OPERATION OF S.27: 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
with question of relevancy. The relevancy of fact discovered must be
established according to 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 accuseds own act.
4. The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence
5. He must be in custody of a police officer
6. The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from
an accused in custody must de deposed to
7. Thereupon only that portion of the information, which relates
distinctly os strictly to the fact discovered, can be proved.
The rest is in admissible23
CONSTITUNAL VALIDITY: The constitunal validity of Section 27 has been challenged much time on the
ground that it is violative of Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Article 20(3)
syas: No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
The Supreme Court in State of Bombay vs. K.K. Oghad24 held that the
statements admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act are not within the
prohibition of Art. 20(3) unless compulsion has been used in obtaining the
information. The mere fact that there accused was in custody at the time he
made the confession did not make it a compelled statement tough the fact
coupled with others might establish that the statement was compelled.
In Panda vs. Union of India25the Supreme Court, dealing with the argument that
Art. 20(3) only provides that an accused cannot be compelled to be witness
against himself, observed that he expression to be a witness bears the wider
23 Dhirajlal Ratanlal, The Law of Evidence, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur,
22nd Enlarged Edition, 2006
24 AIR 1961 SC 1808
25 AIR 1963 SC
14

meaning of bearing testimony orally or written in court or out of court by a

person accused of an offence. It would therefore include statements under
section 27. The decision of SC has been treated as setting the law on the
question.
In State of U.P. vs. Deoman Upadhiyaya 26 the constitunal validity of Section 27
was challenged on the basis that it is violative of Art 14 of Constitution of India.
The apex court held that Section 27 is not violative of Art 14. Dealing with that
it discriminates between confessions made by persons in custody of a police
officer and persons in custody not in custody, the Supreme Court held that the
distinction made between the two classes of persons couldnt be called arbitrary,
artificial or evasive. Persons in custody and persons not in custody do not stand
on the same footing nor require identical protection.

Section 28
S.28 Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement,
threat or promise relevant- If such a confession as s referred 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 as relevant.
26 AIR 1960 SC
15

PRINCIPLE: This section makes it possible for a confession to be relevant provided

such confession is made after the impression caused by any inducement, threat
or promise has been fully removed. Thus this section forms an exception to
Section 24. The proper position of this section therefore should have been
immediately after Section 24.
Under this Section in order to treat a confession hit by section 24, as
relevant, the court, form the facts and circumstances of each case, has to come
to a definite conclusion that the impression caused in the mind of the accused to
make a confession by inducement, threat or promise, has been fully removed.
The burden is on the prosecution to satisfy the court by clear evidence that the
impression caused by any such inducement; threat or promise has been fully
removed from the mind of the accused.

Section 29
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 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 have been the
form of those questions, or because he was not bound to make such confession,
and that evidence of it might be given against him.
PRINCIPLE: Under this section, if confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become
irrelevant merely because of certain circumstances referred to in the section.

16

Under Section 24, if the confession were caused by any inducement, threat or
promise relating to the charge and proceeding from a person in authority, it
would not be relevant. So if there were no such threat, promise or inducement, it
would become relevant. Under Section 25, confession to a police officer is not
admissible. If it not made to a police officer but is made to any other person, it
would become relevant. Under section 26, though confession is made while in
police custody, if it is made in the immediate presence of the Magistrate, it
would be relevant. 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 practiced 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 him27.
IF SUCH CONFESSION IS OTHERWISE RELEVANT: These words indicate that before the provision of this section can be
invoked, it mist appear that the confession in question is admissible under the
preceding sections of the Act. If for any of the reasons mentioned in Ss. 24, 26
and 28, the confession is inadmissible, then there is no question of applying the
provisions of Section 29. Section 29, therefore, assumes that there is no bar to
the admissibility of the confession in question arising from any of the said
earlier provisions and it then proceeds to invalidate or negative other possible
objections or bars that may be raised against its admissibility.
SECTION 29 AND SECTION 164 OF Cr.P.C.: The question has repeatedly arisen whether in a case where the provisions in
Section 164 Cr.P.C, were not complied with in recording a confession of an
accused, the confession would still not become irrelevant u/s 29, if such
confession was otherwise relevant.
Section 164 of Cr.P.C provides the formalities to be undergone by
Magistrates in recording confession. It says, among other things, the Magistrate
shall explain to the person making the confession that he is not bound to make
it. But this section says that a confession does not become irrelevant because the
accused was not warned that he is not bound to make it. The Bombay HC in
27Dhirajlal Ratanlal, The Law of Evidence, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur,
22nd Enlarged Edition,2006.
17

Emperor vs. Ramnath Mahabir28 held that the Cr.P.C is a special enactment
applying only to certain statements made in particular circumstances
contemplated by section 164. It cannot override the general provisions of this
section except where these circumstances bring the section into operation.
Section 30
S.30-Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it
and others jointly under trial for some offence- When more persons than one
are being tried jointly for 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.
OBJECT AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE: The object of this section is that where an accused person unreservedly
confesses his own guilt, and at the same time implicates the 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 place of the sanction of an oath and so affords some guarantee that the
whole statement is a true one29.
The section says nothing, not r it would have been desirable to say anything
about the evidentiary value of the confession of a co-accused. All that the
section says and was necessary to say is that such confession may be taken into
consideration against all of them, leaving the weight of the confession to the
discretion of the court. Their Lordships of the Privy Council, in Bhuboni Sahu
vs. The King30 observed that the confession may be considered by the court, but
section does not say that the confession is to amount to proof; clearly there must
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.
In Kashmira Singh vs. State of M.P.31, the Honble SC observed that the proper
way to approach a case of this kind is, first marshal the evidence against the
28 (1925) 28 Bom LR 111
29 Justice Nandi A.K., Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Kamal Law house, 6th
Edition, 2010
30 AIR 1949 PC 1257
31 AIR 1952 SC 159
18

accused, excluding the confession altogether from consideration, and see

weather, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based o it. If it is capable
of belief independently of the confession, then of course, it is not necessary to
call the confession in aid.
In Pratham vs. State of Haryana32, the Apex court observed that,
Though confession may be regarded as evidence in generic sense because of
the provisions of Section 30 of the Evidence Act but it is not evidence as
defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, in dealing with a case
against an accused, the court cannot start with the confession of a co- accused; it
must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution and after it has
formed its opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence,
then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to
the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said
other evidence.
INGREDIENTS: 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:
There must be joint trial for the same offence
It must be a confession
The confession of guilt must effect himself and others, i.e., implicate the
maker substantially to the same extent as the other accused
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
roped33.
APPLICABILTY OF CONFESSION: The court is to apply a double test for deciding the applicability of a confession
i.e.,
i. Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary, and
ii. If so, it is true and trustworthy.
Satisfaction of the first test is sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence.
Normally, if a statement made by an accused person is found to be voluntary
32 AIR 2012 SC 238
33 Dhirajlal Ratanlal, The Law of Evidence, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur,
22nd Enlarged Edition, 2006
19

and it amounts to a confession in the sense that it implicates the maker; it is not
likely that the maker would implicate himself untruly.So section 30 provides
that such a confession may be taken into consideration even against the coaccused who is being tried along with the maker of the confession.
TRIED JOINTLY: There must be joint trial of the accused. The joint trial should be legal. In
form any cause the accused who made the confession cannot be legally tried
with the accused against which the confession is to be used, the court should not
attach any value to the confession.

Extra Judicial Confession

These are made by the party elsewhere than before a Magistrate or in Court.
The words used by the accused in confessing are very much important and,
therefore, the same words would be necessary to give to the court an impression
of what the true confession was. Further an extra-judicial confession can be
accepted without corroboration of evidence if it inspires confidence.Where the
witnesses asked the accused as to what had happened to the missing girl and on
showing his ignorance, they persisted and pressurized him by putting questions
and in such process the accused made extra-judicial confession of the offence, it
was held that the confession, was extracted.34
The law in regard to extra-judicial confessions may be stated thus, An
extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along
with other evidence in convicting the accused.Usually, and as a matter of
caution, Courts require some material corroboration to an extra- judicial
confessional statement. Extra-judicial confessions, voluntarily made and fully
consistent with circumstantial evidences establish the guilt of the accused.
Extra-judicial confession can be accepted as evidence only if the Court is
satisfied that it is both voluntary and true. It must be received with great
caution.The exact words used by the accused should always be ascertained; and
34Arumugham v. Slate of T.N., 1994 Cr LJ 520 (Mad).
20

before it is accepted as a piece of evidence justifying a conviction, the Court

should satisfy itself on the following points: 1. What were the circumstances under which it was made or in what manner
was it obtained?
2. Was the confession made by the accused voluntarily?
3. What was the reason for the accused to have confided in the witness who
proves it and to have made a clean breast of his action?
4. Did the witness truly understand the sense of what was stated to him, or is
there any room for a mistake or misapprehension?
5. Have the words uttered by the accused been correctly reproduced or is the
witness improving on the statement which was made to him?
6. Has the witness any personal motive to depose falsely against the
accused, or have the police, in their eagerness to prove the commission of
a crime, put up that witness to prove a confession35.
In Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu36, the Honble Supreme Court observed,
The law is well settled as to what extent extra-judicial confession can be relied
on. If the same is voluntary and made in a fit state of mind, it can be relied upon
along with other materials. It is true that the extra-judicial confession is a weak
type of evidence and depends upon the nature of circumstances like the time
when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to
such a confession.
In Sahib Hussain @ Sahib Jan vs. State of Rajisthan 37 the accused commited
the offence of murder and made confession before his friend. He was convicted
on the basis of the confession along with other material facts. The Honble
Supreme Court further observed that The extra judicial confession, though
weak type of evidence, can form the basis for conviction if the confession made
by the accused is voluntary, true and trustworthy and if it inspired confidence.

Evidentiary value of Confession

Confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would
make an admission against himself unless prompted by his conscience to tell the
35http://www.preservearticles.com/2012032929284/short-notes-on-extrajudicial-confession.html
36 Criminal Appeal no. 1450 of 2009, SC
37 AIR 2013 SC 1159
21

truth. The Supreme Court in Shankaria vs. State of Rajisthan38 has explained the
evidentiary value of a confession. It was observed that it is well settled that a
confession, if voluntary and truthfully made, is an efficacious proof of guilt.
Therefore, when in a capital case the prosecution demands conviction of the
accused primarily on the ground of his confession recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C, the court must apply a double test
i. Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary, and
ii. If so, it is true and trustworthy.
Satisfaction of the first test is sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence.
Normally, if a statement made by an accused person is found to be voluntary
and it amounts to a confession in the sense that it implicates the maker; it is not
likely that the maker would implicate himself untruly. So section 30 provides
that such a confession may be taken into consideration even against the coaccused who is being tried along with the maker of the confession.
In State vs. Nalini39 the court negative the contention that a confessional
statement is not a substantive piece of evidence. A confession under Section 15
of the TADA Act, 1987, is not merely of corroborative nature to be used I
support of other evidence, it is of substantive nature itself.

Admissions and Confession Distinguished

According to Stephen, An admission is a statement, oral or written, suggesting
an inference as to any fact in issue or relevant or deemed to be relevant to any
such fact, made by or on behalf of any party.
An Admission is a statement of fact, which waives or disperses with
the production of evidence by conceding that the fact asserted by the opponent
is true. Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding,
in respect to the manner in dispute, whether by acts, speech, or writing, which is
clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention, in fact relevant to the issue.
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 certain extent. But there are obvious points of
38 AIR 1978 SC 1248
39 AIR 1999 SC 3240
22

distinction too. The act lays down different rule as to their relevancy. The points
of difference are as follows:
Firstly, the provisions relating to confessions occur under the heading
admissions, it follows that the word admission is more
comprehensive and includes confessions too. A confession is only a
species of admission. Thus every confession is an admission but every
admission is not a confession
Secondly, though the definition of admission given under section 17
should equally apply to confessions also because the term confession is
nowhere defined in the Act.
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
against or in favour of the party making it, and that is why S. 2 permits a
person, in certain exceptional cases, to prove his own statements.
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 provisions Section 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 co-accused who are being tried with him for
the same offence. In the case of admissions, statements of co-plaintiff or
those of a co-defendant ae no evidence against the others.
Seventhly, 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 doesnot constitute a conclusive
proof of the fact admitted, though it may operate as an estoppel against
the party making the admission. As to the value of a confession there is
no provision in Evidence Act, but the courts have always regarded
confession as a satisfactory proof of the guilt of the accused.

23

In State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sidhu @ Afsal Guru 40, the apex court
distinguished between admission and confession and observed that,
Confessions which is a terminology used in criminal law is a species of
'admissions' as defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act. An admission
is a statement, oral or documentary, Which enables the court to draw an
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. It is trite to say that
every confession must necessarily be an admission, but, every admission does
not necessarily amount to a confession . While Sections 17 to 23 deal with
admissions, the law as to confessions is embodied in Sections 24 to 30 of the
Evidence Act.

Bibliography
1. Dhirajlal Ratanlal, The Law of Evidence, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur,
22nd Enlarged Edition, 2006
2. Singh Avtar, Principles of the Law of Evidence, Central Law Publications,
20th Edition
40 AIR 2005 SC 3820
24

3. Polein Murphy, Law of Evidence, UniversalPublishers, 5th Edition, 2000

4. Meer Ali & Woodroffe, Law of Evidence, Butterworths 18thEdition, 2009
5. http://www.preservearticles.com/2012032929284/short-notes-on-extrajudicial-confession.html
6. Chawlas Law Finder

25