Confession

 What is Confession ?

A ‘‘Confession’’ must either be an express acknowledgement of guilt of the offence charged,

certain and complete in itself, or it must admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.

In Sahib singh vs. State of Haryana (AIR 1997 SC 3247) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus,

“42. Section 24 provides, though in the negative form, that ‘Confession’ can be treated as relevant

against the person making the confession unless it appears to the Court that it is rendered irrelevant on

account of any of the factors, namely, threat, inducements, promises etc. mentioned therein. Whether the

‘Confession’ attracts the frown of Section 24 has to be considered from the point of view of the confession

of the accused as to how the inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority would operate in his

mind. (See Satbir Singh V. State of Punjab (1977 (2) SCC 263)). “Confession has to be affirmatively

proved to be free and voluntary. (See Hem Rah Devilal v. State of Ajmer (AIR 1954 SC 462)). Before a

conviction can be based on “confession”, it has to be shown that it was truthful.

43. Section 25 which provides that a Confession made to a Police Officer shall not be proved

against the person accused of an offence, places complete ban on the making of such confession by that

person whether he is in custody or not. Section 26 lays down that confession made by a person while he is

in custody of a Police Officer shall not be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence

of a Magistrate. Section 27 provides that when any fact is discovered in consequence of information

received from a person accused of any offence who is in the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such

information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates to the fact thereby discovered, may be

proved. Section 27 is thus in the form of a proviso to Sections 24, 25 and 26. Section 164, 281 463 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure are the other provisions dealing with confession and the manner in which it is

to be recorded.”

(b). General Corroboration:-

In Madi Ganga vs. State of Orissa (AIR 1981 SC 1165) the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that,

“6. .... It is now well settled that in order to sustain a conviction on the basis of a confessional

statement it is sufficient that the general trend of the confession is substantiated by some

evidence which would tally with the contents of the confession. General corroboration is sufficient

vide Subramania Goundan V. State of Madras (AIR 1958 SC 66). ....”

(c). Incriminating fact without establishing the guilt:-

Admission – Incriminating fact without establishing the guilt of the maker is not a confession –

Kanda Padayachi vs. State of Tamil Nadu – AIR 1972 SC 66.

9

(d). Inculpatory and exculpatory portion of the Confession:-

Confession – Appreciation of – Acceptance of inculpatory portion while ignoring the improbable

exculpatory portion - Conviction on the basis of confession, affirmed vide Nishi Kant Jha vs. State of

Bihar (AIR 1969 SC 422), in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that ,

“The exculpatory part of the appellant’s statement was not only inherently improbable but was

contradicted by the other evidence and also it was wholly unacceptable. The other incriminating

circumstances considered along with the appellant’s statement pointed conclusively to his having

committed the murder. The court could reject the exculpatory portion of the statement and accept

inculpatory portion.”

In Devku Bhikha vs. State of Gujarat – 1995 AIR SC 2171 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that,

“3. It is settled law that the confession of the accused has to be taken as a whole and the

exculpatory part cannot be thrown aside.”

(e). Co- accused:-

Confession – Co-accused – Confession of co-accused can be taken into consideration but it is not

substantive piece of evidence – Ram Chandra vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1957 SC 381).

Confession of co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence vide Bishnu Prasad Sinha V.

State of Assam (2007 (11) SCC 467), in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that,

“The expression “the court may take into consideration such confession” is significant. It

signifies that such confession by the maker as against the co-accused himself should be treated as

a piece of corroborative evidence. In the absence of any substantive evidence, no judgment of

conviction can be recorded only on the basis of confession of a co-accused, be it extra-judicial

confession or a judicial confession and least of all on the basis of retracted confession.”

(f). Co- accused and Corroboration:-

Confession – Corroboration – Co-accused – Joint trial of more than one accused – The

confession is not irrelevant against co-accused but it is a matter of practice that it is not ordinarily acted

upon without corroboration – Ram Prakash vs. State of Punjab – AIR 1959 SC 1.

Each and every piece of information mentioned in confession need not be corroborated

by independent evidence.

Vilayuda Pulavar vs State 2009(14) SCC 436