WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND BY CONFESSION?
The term confession, surprisingly, has not been defined explicitly anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act, which means that other authorities need to be referred to in order to understand the true meaning of the term.
The earliest definition of confession was given in the Digest of the Law of Evidence authored by Justice Stephen, and was defined as follows:
“admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime”
“The Indian Courts initially accepted this definition, but this view was later overruled as even statements that contained mere admissions of incomplete yet incriminating facts were being treated as confessions. The Privy Council in Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor[1], which is now considered as an authority on the scope and definition of the term confession, held this definition to be incorrect as it considered the scope of this definition to be too wide. It held that if an exculpatory statement is found to negate the alleged offence in any manner, or is made under any kind of inducement or coercion cannot be accepted in court as evidence, and thus, will not be regarded as a valid confession. In doing so, the court narrowed down the scope of confessions to only those statements, which when seen alone and dissociated with any other evidence submitted to the court, determines substantially all the facts that constitute the commission of an offence.[2] If it does not, it cannot be treated as a confession.”
The Supreme Court of India has further expanded upon this definition in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla[3], where it was held that a statement may be regarded as a confession by a court only if it is made directly and voluntarily by the accused party. The court also held that if such a statement falls short of establishing guilt, it may still be used against the accused as an admission as opposed to a confession.
WHAT IS JUDICIAL & EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION?
In CBI v. V.C. Shukla[4], the Supreme Court held that a confession, if made to a person of authority as a consequence of improper inducement, promise or threat, or to a police officer, whether or not at the time when the accused was in custody of such police officer, will not be regarded as admissible in the court of law. This brings up the topic of judicial and extra-judicial confessions and raises the question of which is admissible in court as evidence and when.
“The Merriam-Webster Legal Dictionary defines the phrase judicial confession as simply, “a confession made in a legal proceeding or trial”.[5] Thus, a judicial confession is one which is made before a trial court or magistrate in the course of legal proceedings. Such confessions, when they meet the requirements laid down in Narayan Swami[6] , are admissible as evidence in courts of law.”
“On the other hand, those confessions which are made outside the court and not before a magistrate are known as extra-judicial confessions. Such confessions raise doubts about their credibility as the circumstances in which such statements are made may remain unknown. The courts have dealt with this factor in a plethora of cases.”
ADMISSIBILITY & RELEVANCE OF CONFESSIONS
Admissibility and Relevance of Judicial Confessions
The admissibility and relevance of confessions in court proceedings are dependent on various factors, such as the truthfulness of the confession and the circumstances in which such confession is made. The courts have dealt with this in detail and have laid down certain tests which enable the courts to determine whether a confession can be admissible in court as evidence in court or not, apart from the tests to be followed for admissions generally.
These tests can be summarised as follows:
· “A confession must be taken as a whole, i.e., literatim at verbatim. This confession may be used, both in favour and against the accused, which is why the entire statement must be considered by the court, with its inculpatory and exculpatory parts.[7]“
· “As already stated above, the test laid down in Narayan Swami[8] and V.C. Shukla[9], is of utmost importance. The tests lay down that a confession must be proven to be made without inducement and/or coercion, and it should, when taken as a whole, constitute a substantial part of the elements constituting an offence in order to be construed against the accused. However, if these criteria are not met, the statement so made may be used as an admission against the accused.”
In addition to the above, certain specific tests have been laid down to determine the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions.
Admissibility and Relevance of Extra - Judicial Confessions
“The admissibility and relevance of extra-judicial confessions, to a certain extent, is governed by the Evidence Act under Section 24 and 27. Section 24 of the Act states that no confession is admissible if made under any kind of threat or coercion.[10] Thus, if the court believes that a confession, which is not made before it, is made under any kind of threat or agreement flowing from a person of authority, then such evidence will not be admissible in courts of law.”
“Section 27 of the Act states that any information discovered as a result of the accused person’s own act, while such person is in the custody of the Police, is admissible as evidence, so far as it is relevant to the case.[11] Portions of such confession which do not relate to the case will be left out.[12] While these provisions lay down some criteria for admission of extra-judicial evidence, they seem to be incomplete. Hence, decisions of the Supreme Court of India must be referred to for further clarity.”
“The Supreme Court of India in Balwinder Singh v. State[13] it was held that the primary thing to be tested in cases of extra-judicial confessions is the credibility of the person making the confession and whether the statement itself is trustworthy or not.”
“In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram[14], it was further held that given the character of an extra-judicial evidence as being very weak, it may be admissible in court if the court is convinced that the confession can be relied upon by the court. It was further stated that such confessions must be proven like any other fact and its evidentiary value is dependent upon the veracity of the witness to whom it was made. However, it has also been held that the court must not be prejudiced in any manner as to such weak character of the extra-judicial confession while dealing with the same.[15]“
“These views were upheld in the case of Sahadevan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan[16]. Thus, the courts have not been entirely against the admission of extra-judicial evidence, but have also laid down the tests and precautions when courts proceed to admit these confessions as evidence. There have also been cases where courts have placed heavy reliance on extra-judicial confessions in order to convict or acquit a person, which have been discussed in the following section.”
Corroboration of Extra-Judicial Confessions
“The Supreme Court in Pakkiri Samy v. State of Tamil Nadu[17] held that a court must act cautiously in dealing with extra-judicial confessions and generally look for some corroboration before placing any reliance on such evidence. Thus, this sets the basis that courts must look for corroboration of extra-judicial statements.”
“This rule has however, been relaxed in order to suit the needs of the case in many instances. In Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey[18], it was held that it is not a requirement of law to corroborate extra-judicial confessions in all cases. It was further stated that it is not necessary to corroborate each and every statement of a confession in the name of prudence.[19]“
“This judgment was recently upheld by the Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh[20] where it was further held that if the court is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, they can convict on this basis, without the need to corroborate each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession.”
Thus, it is clear that corroboration of evidence is based entirely on the discretion of the court, and the extent to which such evidence must be corroborated depends on the circumstances of each case. Based on such evidence, convictions may also be made as per the discretion of the court and in the best interests of justice.
PROBATIVE VALUE OF CONFESSIONS MADE TO POLICE OFFICERS
“Confessions made in police custody are covered under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 25 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that confessions made to the police cannot be admissible as evidence in a court of law.[21] The reason behind this is that if such confessions are allowed to be admitted in courts of law, then the police can exercise undue force over the accused person and cook up all kinds of stories.[22] This necessitates a presumption against statements made to the police. The scope of section 26 of the Evidence Act is even wider. It provides that no confession made in the custody of a police officer is admissible as evidence in a court of law.[23] This even includes confessions made to other third parties, like a doctor or visitor, when a person is in police custody.[24]“
“In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhayaya, it was held that any confession made by a person when in custody of a police officer would be barred from being admitted to court as evidence.[25] However, the situation in which these provisions of the evidence act may be invoked may not be so straightforward.”
“This was the case in Sita Ram v. State[26] where the accused was a murderer and he left a note next to the dead body confessing the crime. This letter was addressed to the police officer. The Supreme Court, by majority held that this was a peculiar case that did not fit within the bounds of sections 25 and section 26 of the Evidence Act, even though the letter was addressed directly to the police officer. This is because the police officer was not privy to the letter at the time it was being written. However, there was also a dissenting judgment in which it was held that even though the police officer was not privy to the letter at the time it was written, it was still a confession directly to a police officer, which is prohibited under the statute.”
Thus, it is clear that this rule is slightly flexible and needs to be suited and applied to every situation given the circumstances of the case.
CONCLUSION
Confessions, as stated above, are merely a sub-species of admissions, as dealt with in the Evidence Act, 1872. There are many situations which the Act fails to cover with respect to admissibility of confessions as evidence, which is the need arises to resort to judgments passed by the courts.
The credibility of extra-judicial confessions is largely governed by judge made law, as has been seen above. There have been cases where convictions have been based entirely on extra-judicial convictions, while in some cases, such confessions have been rejected outright. Thus, it can safely be said that admissibility of such evidence is based largely on the discretion of the courts. However, they must proceed with caution and analyse all surrounding circumstances very carefully.
[1] “Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47.“
[2] “Karam Din v. Emperor, (1929) 30 Cr LJ 385.“
[3] “Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3 SCC 410.“
[4] Ibid.
[5]“Merrian-Webster, Judicial Confession, available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/judicial%20confession (Last Accessed Apr. 01, 2020)”
[6] “Supra, Note 1.”
[7] “Ghulam Mohammad v. Emperor, (1942) 20 Cr LJ 737.”
[8] “Supra, Note 1.”
[9] “Supra, Note 2.”
[10] “Section 24, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
[11] “Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
[12] “Pulukuri Kotayya Vs. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67.”
[13] “Balwinder Singh v. State, AIR 1975 SC 258.”
[14] “State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180.”
[15] “Narayan Singh v. State, AIR 1985 SC 1678.”
[16] “Sahadevan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403.”
[17] “Pakkirisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1998 SC 107.”
[18] “Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval Dubey and Anr., (1992)3 SCC 204.”
[19] “Piara Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 452.”
[20] “Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 343.”
[21] “Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
[22] “Sengupta A., Confessions in the Custody of a Police Officer: Is it the Opportune Time for Change?, Student Bar Review, Vol. 18, No. 1 (2006), pp. 31-44, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/44306645 (Last Visited Apr. 01, 2020).”
[23] “Section 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
[24] “Narayana Swami v. Emperor, 1939 PC 47.”
[25] “State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125.”
[26] “Sita Ram v. State, AIR 1966 SC 1906.”
Comments
Post a Comment