ABSTRACT
“A confession, if freely and voluntarily made, is proof of the maximum quality character.”
-Eyre C. B.
Confession is essential to the pursuit of a criminal case, which is predicated on accuracy and truth. The accused is expressing regret by this conduct. The accused benefits from the confession’s truthfulness because, logically, it should have the greatest weight. It comes from the deepest sense of guilt, after all. Confession is therefore essential in deciding how the trial will proceed.
If the accused acknowledges the confession in a statement made pursuant to Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and does not retract it throughout the trial, it may be deemed credible, particularly if it is supported by additional evidence. The court may accept the confession as acceptable evidence if the accused does not contest its truthfulness or the conditions surrounding its recording.
Under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confessions must be recorded according to stringent guidelines. Confessions, for instance, have to be recorded before the start of the magistrate’s investigation, and the accused cannot be in police custody when the confession is made. If these conditions are not met, the confession might not be allowed to be used as evidence.
Confessions are useful evidence in criminal cases, but courts need to be careful when using them as evidence. Before confessions are used to convict an accused person, their voluntariness and veracity must be thoroughly assessed and taken into account in connection with other pieces of evidence.
KEYWORDS
Confessions, Section 164 of CrPC, Indian evidence act, judicial confessions, extra judicial confessions, retarted confessions, confessions by co-accused.
INTRODUCTION
As per Sir James Stephen, “an admission made at any point in time by a person facing criminal charges expressing or implying the conclusion that he committed a crime.”
Although it is an unknown fact that the Indian Evidence Act contains no definition or expression of the term “confession,” the reasoning provided in Section 17 of the Act under the concept of admission also applies to confession. Any statement, whether oral or in documented form, that is presented for consideration of any conclusion to the relevant facts or the fact in question is specifically prohibited by Section 17.
Therefore, a confession is something that is made by the individual who is accused of committing a crime, and any words he makes will be seen as offering an opinion on any pertinent facts or facts that are at issue. Any logic for drawing the conclusion or implying that he is guilty of a crime may be inferred from the words. In other terms, we may describe a confession as the acknowledgment made by the accused during the criminal trial.
In the case of Pakala Narayan Swami V. EmperorLord Atkin made the observation that a confession needs to be accepted either in connection with an offense or in regard to any significant circumstances that trigger criminal proceedings for the offense. Furthermore, admitting substantial misconduct—even one that is clearly incriminating—does not constitute a confession in and of itself.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper is of descriptive nature and the research is based on secondary sources for the deep analysis of the importance of confession by accused and co accused and their value as important evidence and their admissibility. Secondary sources of information like newspapers, journals, and websites are used for the research.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Evidence Act’s Sections 24 through 30 address confessions. Sections 164, 281, and 463 of the 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure similarly concern confession5. The accused’s acknowledgement or acknowledgment of the crime is called a confession. The term “confession” appears in the Evidence Act for the first time in Section 24, which addresses the admissibility of a confession. Therefore, confession is the acknowledgement of claims that establish the guilt of the accused. Confession can occur in a variety of ways, including formal and retracted confessions, extrajudicial confessions, and court confessions.
FORMS OF CONFESSION
Confessions can take many different shapes. A confession made to the court will be referred to as judicial confession; a confession made to someone outside the court will be referred to as extra-judicial confession. It might even involve talking to oneself, which could be used as proof if someone else overhears you. For instance, in Sahoo v. State of U.P, the accused—who was charged with killing his daughter-in-law, with whom he had frequent arguments—was observed leaving the house the day of the murder and uttering statements along the lines of, “I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels. “The admission was deemed to be a confession that was relevant to the evidence because confessions do not always need to be shared with other people in order to be relevant”.
Judicial confession- are those that are made in court or before a magistrate following the proper legal procedures. “A plea of guilty on arrangement (made before a court) if made freely by a person in a fit state of mind” is the definition of a judicial confession.
Extra-judicial confessions- are those that the accused makes outside of a courtroom or before a magistrate. It is not required that the comments have been targeted to a specific person. The event could have happened as a prayer. It could be an admission to a private individual. “A free and voluntary confession of guilt by a person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other than judge or magistrate seized of the charge against himself” is the definition of an extra-judicial confession. Following the committing of a crime, a man may send a letter to a friend or relative expressing his regret for the situation. This may be considered a confession.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION
Confessions given to a judicial magistrate according to section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are known as judicial confessions. In procedures, committal hearings, or in front of the bench. Conversely, confessions made to those not authorized by law are referred to as extrajudicial confessions. It may be made to any organization or police officer acting in their individual capacity during the prosecution of an infraction.
It is not necessary to call the individual to whom the judicial confession is made as a witness in order to corroborate it. On the other hand, extrajudicial confession is demonstrated by calling the individual making the confession as a witness.
If a judicial confession seems to the court to be genuine and voluntary, it may be used as proof of guilt against the guilty defendant. On the other hand, extrajudicial confessions cannot be relied upon in isolation since they need to be supported by further supporting evidence.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION
Confessions serve as substantial evidence against their makers, and if they are properly documented and free from any legal flaws, they can be used to condemn the accused. However, the court will often wait to act on a confession until it has been corroborated. Even so, a little confirmation would do. However, the Court needs to be certain that a confession is sincere and voluntary before acting on it.
- Whether there was a threat, enticement, or promise determines whether anything was voluntary.
- Its veracity must be assessed in light of the prosecution’s overall case, specifically focusing on how well it fits into and avoids contradicting the established facts.
When these two requirements are met, it becomes the most significant piece of evidence against the maker.
ADMISSIBILITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUES OF JUDICIAL CONFESSION
Confessions made in a court of law or in front of a judge as required by law are known as judicial confessions. Section 80 of the Evidence Act governs the admissibility of judicial confessions as evidence. It stipulates that a confession made in front of a magistrate or in court during the proper course of legal proceedings is deemed to be a true and genuine confession, allowing the accused to face a fair trial. The government is not qualified to record confessions; only the judiciary is authorized to do so by Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., which gives a magistrate the authority to do so for an accused person. According to the legislation, a judicial confession may be used even in cases when the trial court does not question the recording magistrate.
ADMISSIBILITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION
Extra-judicial confessions are those made by the accused outside of court or someplace else without the presence of a magistrate. Unlike a plea of guilty on an agreement made before a court by the individual in a fit frame of mind, an extra-judicial confession is a free and voluntary admission of guilt made during a talk with someone other than a judge.8. Consequently, extrajudicial confessions are not as valuable as confessions made in court in terms of evidence. It was determined in State v. Sadek Matbar that extrajudicial confessions can be used as evidence even if they are later withdrawn, if they are truthful.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION UNDER CRPC
Confessions made in front of a magistrate are normally admissible as evidence under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and can be used to prove an accused person’s guilt. A confession made in accordance with this clause, however, is not regarded as substantial evidence in and of itself. Alternatively, it might be used to support or refute a declaration made in court.
To make sure the confession is being given willingly, the magistrate must first look into the accused’s care and custody before recording a confessional statement. Inquiring about the accused’s motivations for making a statement that could be detrimental to their interests is another duty of the magistrate.
Because there are measures in place to guarantee that confessions recorded under Section 164 CrPC are voluntary, they are often regarded as trustworthy. These admissions may be very important in establishing the facts of a case and may be utilized by the judge to find the accused person guilty or not.
Although confessions made in accordance with Section 164 CrPC are acceptable as proof, they are not regarded as substantial proof in and of themselves. They can assist prove the veracity of the prosecution’s case and be used to bolster other pieces of evidence in court.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT
If a confession is truthful and voluntary, it can be admitted as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. A confession given under duress, fear, or promise is not relevant in criminal proceedings, according to Section 24 of the Act. As such, it is imperative to demonstrate that a confession was given free from outside coercion.
If shown to be genuine and voluntary, confessions are taken seriously as solid evidence and may result in a conviction. They can be utilized against the confessor as well as against other defendants who are being prosecuted concurrently for the same crime. A confession must, however, be relevant to the charge and have some temporal advantage or disadvantage in order to be accepted.
The confession must be deemed voluntary by the court, which is ascertained by the fact that there was no enticement, threat, or promise. The totality of the prosecution’s case is taken into consideration when assessing the confession’s veracity. An extrajudicial confession could not be seen as trustworthy if it is not backed up by further evidence.
Confessions are a valuable source of evidence in criminal cases, but their weight and admissibility are dependent on a number of variables, including voluntariness and veracity. To ensure that a confession is reliable and pertinent to the matter at hand, courts must carefully consider the circumstances surrounding the confession.
EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSION BEFORE POLICE
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibits the admission of confessions given to police officials in court. This policy is in place to shield the accused from any abuse, pressure, or duress they may experience when interacting with law enforcement.
But Section 27 of the Evidence Act makes an exemption to this restriction. A confession is admissible if it results in the discovery of a fact. The person must be in police custody and facing charges at the time of the confession in order for this exemption to be applicable.
Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) describes the steps a magistrate must take while recording a confession in order to increase protection against pressure.By taking these steps, the police cannot unfairly influence the accused and guarantee that the confession is voluntary.
There are certain exceptions to the rule that confessions given to police officials are not admissible in court. These exclusions are intended to guarantee that confessions are acquired in a fair and voluntary manner, free from excessive coercion by law enforcement.
RETRACTED CONFESSION
Retraction is defined as “the action of drawing back something” in English. Retraction confessions are a specific kind of confession in which the confessor has freely previously made a confession but has now withdrawn or retracted it. If the retracted confession is supported by other independent and corroborated evidence, it may be used against the confessor.
In the case of Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan, The Supreme Court held that a retracted confession had sufficient value to prove a conviction under other legal grounds, provided that the Court determined that the confession was made voluntarily and truthfully. However, the court must attest that until and until these confessions are verified, the conviction cannot be based only on them.
CONFESSION TO POLICE
A confession is particularly addressed under Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Sections 162 to 164 of the CrPC, while the essence of commission is covered by other acts.
No comment given to a police officer “shall be considered as a confession for the purpose of proving that confession against that person who is accused to the case,” according to Section 25. Crucially important are the provisions outlined in Section 25 of this Act, which ensures that whatever confession the accused gives to the police officer—under any circumstances—is not admissible as evidence in a court of law against the accused to establish his guilt.
Section 26 forbids the use of an accused person’s confession to the police while they are in their custody to establish the accused person’s guilt. Provisions in Section 25 that permit a confession made to a police officer while they are in custody to be recorded in front of a magistrate are partially prohibited by Section 26.
CASE LAWS
STATE v. RAM AUTAR CHAUDHRY
In this instance, the confession was recorded subsequent to the start of the preliminary investigation into the accused, and it was within this framework that the bench, which included Justices James, J.J. and Raghubar Dayal, met. maintained that:
Therefore, in our judgment, a magistrate could not have recorded Budhoo’s confession while claiming to be acting in accordance with his authority under Section 164 Cr. C. P. and that a confession that he had so recorded was not admissible as proof.
BACHCHAN LAL v. STATE
The confession in this instance was likewise recorded during the preliminary investigation; in fact, it was recorded after the Committing Magistrate had taken testimony from specific witnesses. Raghubar Dayal and James, JJ. held that: “…this confession cannot be taken in evidence as a magistrate can record a confession under Section 164 Criminal Procedure Code during the investigation of the crime by the police and not subsequent to the closing of the investigation and submission of the charge-sheet.” They purportedly based this ruling on their earlier ruling in State v. Ram Autar Chaudhry, [AIR 1955 All 138].
RAJA RAM v. STATE
“A confession recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the police had completed its investigation and submitted a charge-sheet, but before the Magisterial enquiry has commenced, is inadmissible in evidence,” the Full Bench made reference to earlier two cases of the Allahabad High Court, State v. Ram Autar Chaudhry and Bachchan Lal v. State.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. SINGHARA SINGH & ORS.
The admissibility of the magistrate’s oral evidence—which included the respondents’ confessions, which were recorded—was contested in this instance since the respondents were charged with murder. The confession could not be recorded by the magistrate. The Trial Court refused to admit the confessional records.
It was decided that confession was not recorded in accordance with Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the record could not be used as proof of confession in accordance with Sections 74 and 80 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the magistrate’s oral testimony was not allowed.
ANIL alias RAJU NAMDEV PATIL v. ADMINISTRATION OF DAMAN & DIU
The defendant was being held by the court. The magistrate took care not to record his statement that day after he was brought before her. He was invited to attend the next day. A legal notice of caution was once more given forth. The next day, his comment was captured on camera. Thus, all of the conditions of Section 164 Cr.P.C. have been met. The confession was not withheld from the court throughout the trial. The sole examination that was allegedly conducted under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. You can trust the confession.
BABUBHAI UDESINH PARMAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT.
The accused in this instance was charged with both the murder and rape of a girl. In accordance with Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the accused’s confession was recorded by the magistrate. Strict adherence to Section 164’s requirements is required. There was no legal support given to the accused. As soon as the accused was brought before the magistrate, the confession was instantly recorded. The accused was not given any time to think. The confessional statement was determined to be inconsistent with the prosecution’s case. To convict the defendants, no other evidence was presented. The confession-based conviction was overturned.
CONCLUSION
Confessions have a considerable but nuanced evidentiary significance in court cases. If a confession is made voluntarily, consistently, and supported by further evidence, it may be used as compelling proof of guilt. Courts must carefully consider confessions, nevertheless, to make sure they are not the product of inappropriate influences, compulsion, or inducement.
When it comes to proving guilt, confessions that satisfy the requirements of voluntariness and sincerity can be quite important. However, confessions alone are rarely accepted by courts, which frequently need supporting evidence to uphold a conviction. Confessions’ overall evidential value is determined by how closely they follow the law and how well they align with the other pieces of evidence in the case.
G.N.V.S.S.P.AASHRITHA
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY