Vidhi Agarwal
In simple terms, confession is the admission of your guilt or your wrong doing. In law, it is highlighted first in the Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act . Section 24 talks about confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.
It says- 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 proceedings against him.
Noticed in Pakala Narayan Swami v Emperor, Lord Atkin said that a confession must either acknowledge all the facts that comprise the crime in terms of the offense or, at any rate, significantly. A recognition of a severely incriminating truth, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not a confession in itself.
In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab, in the Pakala Narayan Swami case, the Supreme Court accepted the Privy Council decision.
First, the concept of confession is that it must either accept the guilt or significantly acknowledge all the facts that constitute the crime. Secondly, a mixed up assertion that would always lead to acquittal, even if it includes a confessional statement, is no confession.
Thus, a statement containing self-exculpatory matter (excusing one self from blame or guilt) that can not be confessed if valid would negate the matter or offense.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court found out in the case of Nishi Kant Jha v State of Bihar that there was nothing wrong with relying on part of the confessional declaration and refusing the remainder, and the Court sought assistance from the English authorities for this reason.
Where ample evidence exists to deny the exculpatory portion of the statements of the accused person, the Court can rely on the inculpatory portion.
The Different Kinds of Confessions and it’s Evidentiary Value
Depending on the issue of the cases, a confession can be of a particular kind. Confession is narrowly divided into two distinct profiles, such that when the confession is given in the court of law by means of declarations, then such confession will be known as a judicial confession, while when the confession is generated in some position other than court, such confession will lead to extrajudicial confession.
The various collections of confessions do not have the same evidentiary values as some, and their values are both degraded and strengthened by the circumstances of how these confessions are made and when.
The extraordinary aspect of confession is that a dialogue with himself often contributes to a confession and in the case of Sahoo v. the State of U.P., this aspect was illuminated. Where the defendant murdered the newly married wife of his son as he usually has intense disputes with her, and when the defendant killed daughter-in-law, many people living there saw and listened that he was mumbling words while stating that “I finished her and now I’m free of any regular quarrels.”
In this case, the court noted that the assertion or self-discussion made by the accused must be treated as a confession to prove his guilt. Such a confession should be accepted as valid evidence in the administration of justice, and it does not dissolve the relevance of the confession if the claims are not conveyed to any other person other than him.
Therefore, self-confession is also quality testimony, which in a court of law would be regarded as valid evidence.
Judicial Confession
Judicial confession appears in Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 80 talks about –Presumption as to documents produced as record of evidence.
It further states that —Whenever any document is produced before any Court, purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidence, or of any part of the evidence, given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence, or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any Judge or Magistrate, or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume— that the document is genuine; that any statements as to the circumstances under which it was taken, purporting to be made by the person signing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken.
So basically, the evidentiary value of the judicial confession is provided by Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act and states that a confession made in the presence of a magistrate or in the court registered by the magistrate as specified by the law is considered to be valid and legitimate confession and the suspect may be tried with the offence.
Further, Section 164 of the CrPC authorises the magistrate to record confession, hence the confession is recorded by the magistrate regardless of the fact that which magistrate it is, unless he is barred to record the confession.
Therefore, the identity of the perpetrator must be clear and proven in the confession to victimise him for the guilt of the crime he committed in order to lift the presumption. The words of Section 164 of the CrPC is:
1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial: Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:- “ I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. (Signed) A. B. Magistrate”.
(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub- section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.
To sum up, judicial confessions Are those rendered in due course of legal proceedings before a judge or in court if made voluntarily by a person in a sound state of mind, a judicial confession has been defined as “plea of guilty on arrangement (made before a court)”.
Extra Judicial Confession
Extra-judicial confessions- These are those rendered anywhere by the accused than before a judge or in custody. It is not necessary for the statements to be addressed to any particular person. It could have arisen in the form of a plea. It could be a confidential person’s confession.
An extra-judicial confession has been described as “a free and willing confession of guilt by a person charged with a crime in the course of a communication with persons other than the judge or magistrate seized of the charge against himself.”
A man may write a letter to his father or acquaintance after the commission of a crime expressing his sorrow about the matter. This could be a confession. Extra-judicial confession can be recognised and if it passes the legitimacy test, it may be the foundation of a prosecution.
In principle, extra-judicial confession is made before a private person that also involves a judicial officer in his personal capacity. It also involves a magistrate not authorised under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. to record confessions or a magistrate so empowered, but at a stage where section 164 does not apply, obtaining the confession.
Although extra-judicial confession does not have much evidentiary value contrary to judicial confession, the documentation of the accused itself is one of the best proof accessible to the court for accusing the accused of the crime in the case of a written confession.
If the confession is not accessible in the form of written evidence the court may test the defendant’s oral confession made to some other person. The remarks of the accused to any other person may be permissible at the judgment and compliance of the court, and the accused may consequently be convicted for the crime for which he is sued.
Difference between Judicial Confession and Extra Judicial Confession
Judicial confessions are those which, under section 164 of Cr.P.C., are issued to a judicial magistrate. During committal hearings or during proceedings, or before the bench. On the other hand, extra-judicial confessions are those that are confessed to any person other than those allowed by statute. During the prosecution of an offence, it may be made to any entity or police in their personal capacity.
The person to whom the judicial confession is made need not be called as a witness to confirm the judicial confession. However, extra-judicial confession is illustrated by having the person before whom the extra-judicial confession is made as a witness.
Judicial confession may be relied on as evidence of guilt against the convicted party if it seems voluntary and real to the court. Whereas, it is not possible to rely on extra-judicial confession alone as it requires support of other supporting evidence.
Conclusion
We should understand conclusively that the expression of confession implies any claims made by an accused who proves his guilt. So any accusation against him that can prove his guilt is called a confession or confessional statement by a person convicted of any crime. It is noted that confessions are admission enhancements that make it unique, so “All confessions are admissions, but not all admissions are confessions,” is commonly administered.
In Baburao Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, the court, in determining the case stated the principle that “before the Court ascertains the facts for the cause of determining the facts of the case, it should begin to establish the facts of the case with all the other potential evidence relating to the case and then only turn to the approach of confession by the accused for the purpose of administering the case.