ADMISSION & CONFESSION

Statements

Admissions

CONFESSIONS
 Section 17 to 23 &31
 What is Admission? (Section 17)
 Who can make Admissions? (section 18 to 20)
 What is evidentiary value of Admissions? (section 31)
 An admission is a statement, [oral or documentary or contained
in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or
relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the
circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.

 Bessela v. stern: Admission by silence

 Section 18 to 20
 Following parties can make Admissions:
 1. parties to suit
 2. Authorized Agent to such party
 3. Suitor in representative character
 4. party having pecuniary or proprietary interest
 5. Predecessor in title
 6. person whose position or liability is in question
 7. Referee
 Statements made by party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under
the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions.
 Sri Chand Gupta vs. Gulzar Singh, AIR 1992 SC The Apex Court held that before the statement of an agent
can be relevant as admissions, the fact of agency must be proved. – Admissions of facts made by a pleader in
the conduct of a suit on his client’s behalf are binding on the client. But a party is not bound by a pleader’s
admission in argument on what is a pure question of law. – An admission by a counsel or a pleader on a point of
law cannot bind the client.
 By suitor in representative character — Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative
character, are not admissions, unless they are made while the party making them held that character.

 Ram Sahai v. Jai Prakash, AIR 1993

 Kashmira singh v. state of MP
 Statements made by—
(1) By party interested in subject-matter—persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary
interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the statement in their character of
persons so interested, or

(2) By person from whom interest derived- Persons from whom the parties to the suit have
derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the
continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.
Statements made by persons whose position or liability it is necessary to prove as against any party to
the suit are admissions, if such statements would be relevant as against such persons in relation to
such position or liability in a suit brought by or against them, and if they are made whilst the person
making them occupies such position or is subject to such liability.

 Illustration A undertakes to collect rents for B. B sues A for not collecting rent due from C to B. A
denies that rent was due from C to B. A statement by C that he owed B rent is an admission, and
is a relevant fact as against A, if A denies that C did owe rent to B.
Statements made by persons to whom a party to the suit has expressly referred for
information in reference to a matter in dispute are admissions.
 Illustration The question is, whether a horse sold by A to B is sound. A says to
B—"Go and ask C. C knows all about it”. C’s statement is an admission.
 Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his
representative in interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes
them or by his representative in interest,
 except in the following cases:—
 (1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a
nature that, if the person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under
section 32.
 (2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a
statement of the existence of any state of mind or body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the
time when such state of mind or body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its
falsehood improbable.
 (3) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise
than as an admission.
 Section 31: Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop.
 Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under
the provisions hereinafter contained.

 Banarasi Das V. Kanshi Ram AIR 1963:An admission in so far as facts are concerned would bind the maker of the
admission but not in so far as it relates to a question of law. – In English Law, the term “admission” is used in civil
cases; whereas the term “confession” is used in criminal cases as acknowledgement of guilt. This distinction is not
made and maintained in the Evidence Act, and Sections 17 to 22 is applicable to civil as well as criminal cases.
Statements by the accused are admissions under Sections 17 and 18, and prima facie evidence against its maker, but
not in his favour.
 Bishwanath prasad v. dwaraka prasad
Effect of Admission:

 1) Admission act as a waiver of proof – if party has admitted a fact, it

dispenses with the necessity of proving that fact against him.
 2) Admission is a substantive piece of evidence.
 3) Admission is not a conclusive proof (Section 31). A person who has
admitted the fact has right to contradict it in subsequent proceeding.
Therefore, he can rebut it by saying that it was given voluntarily under
stress etc.
 4) Admission may operate as estoppel (Section 31)
 Oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not relevant, unless and until the party
proposing to prove them shows that he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the contents of
such document under the rules hereinafter contained, or unless the genuineness of a document
produced is in question.
 Read with section 65, Section 59 and Section 63(5)
 In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it
is not to be given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed
together that evidence of it should not be given.
 Explanation: Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil
from giving evidence of any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under Section 126.
 This section gives effect to the maxim “interest rei publicae ut sit finis litium (it is for the interest of
the state that there should be an end of litigation).
 This section protects communications made “without prejudice” confidential overtures of pacification
and any other offers or propositions between litigating parties, expressly or impliedly made without
prejudice are excluded on grounds of public policy.
 RELEVANCY OF CONFESSION (
SECTION 24 TO 30)

• Section 24 Evidence Act – Confession by Inducement, Threat or Promise

• Section 25 Evidence Act – Confession to Police Officers Not to be Proved
• Section 26 Evidence Act – Confession by Accused When in Custody
• Section 27 Evidence Act – Information Received From Accused That May be Proved
• Section 28 of the Indian Evidence Act - Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement,
threat or promise relevant.
• Section 29 Evidence Act – Confession Otherwise Relevant Not to Become Irrelevant
• Section 30 Evidence Act – Consideration of Proved Confession
WHAT IS CONFESSION?

 The word confession has not been defined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
 Justice Stephen in his Digest of the law of Evidence defines confession as “confession is an admission made at any time by
a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.
 Aghanoo Nagesia vs the State of Bihar (1965), the Supreme Court held that confession is a species of admission.
 State of UP vs Deoman Upadhyaya (1961), Justice Shah referred to confession as a statement made by a person stating or
suggesting the inference that he has committed a crime.
 Pakala Narayanaswami vs King-Emperor (1939) & Veera Ibrahim v. State of Maharashtra
“confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which
constitute the offence”,
 In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab the Supreme Court approved the Privy Council
decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case over two scores.
Firstly, that the definition if confession is that it must either admit the guilt in terms or admit
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. Secondly, that a mixed up statement which
even though contains some confessional statement will still lead to acquittal, is no confession. Thus,
a statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter or offence,
cannot amount to confession.
 Emperor v. Balmukund :
 Can court if is of opinion that the inculpatory part condemns itself, and the exculpatory part is inherently incredible, act upon
the former and refuse to act upon the latter?
 Answer: No court must reject or accept confession as a whole.

 Jaswant singh v. state of Rajasthan

 The accused said that he was in the room when his wife killed their children and then committed suicide, it was held that
court could not accept the part of the statement by which he confessed to be there and reject the rest.
 Jagdeo v. Emperor compels us to accept the confession as a whole, and that we are not able to choose that part of the
confession which appeals to our reason and reject that which strikes us untrue and absurd.
 Nishi kant jhaa v. state of Bihar:
 Accused was charged with murdering his friend while travelling with him in a train. He was seen
washing his clothes in a river flowing near the station where he murder was detected.
 Blood stained cloths Knife and papers were recovered from him.
 He admitted washing blood in river but explained the presence of blood on cloth by two different
statements:
 1. there was struggle between two people in compartment one stabbed another blood spilled
over him in the act of rescue.
 2. A boy has injured and robbed him.
 The HC did not accepted the explanation and convicted the boy. Sc also confirmed the
judgment pointing out that there is nothing wrong in relying on part of statement and rejected
rest if other evidences are their to reject the exculpatory part.
 Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh
 Exculpatory part can be excluded where the evidence on record disproves it.
 Kinds of Confession Under Indian Evidence
Act

 There are two kinds of confessions under the Evidence Act.

 1. Judicial Confessions.
 Confessions that are made before Magistrate or court in the course of judicial proceedings are Judicial confessions.
 Lokman shah v. state of W.B: voluntariness of confession recorded by magistrate cant be doubted
 Read with section 164 crpc and section 80 of IEA.
 2. Extra-judicial Confessions.
 Confessions that are made by the party elsewhere than before a Magistrate or court are extra-judicial confessions.
 Extra-judicial confession is generally made before private person which includes even judicial officer in his private
capacity. It also includes a magistrate not empowered to record confessions under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. or a
magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when section 164 does not apply.
 Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab it was held that it is precarious to base a conviction on the ground of an extra-
judicial confession as it cannot be relied on and needs other evidence to support the authenticity. The courts generally
look for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon an extra-judicial confession.
 It can even be made to oneself (Sahoo v. State of UP)
 Vinayak Shivaji Rao v. state of Maharashtra: The extra judicial confession can be accepted and be basis of
conviction if it passes the test of credibility.
 Sahadevan v. State of TN:
• It is weak type of evidence court needs to be more cautious.
• Should be made voluntarily and truthful
• Should inspire confidence
SECTION 164 Crpc

 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
Judicial confession Extra-judicial confession
1. Extra-judicial confession are those
1. Judicial confessions are those which which are made to any person other
are made to a judicial magistrate under than those authorized by law to take
section 164 of Cr.P.C. or before the court confession. It may be made to any
during committal proceeding or during person or to police during investigation
trial. of an offence.
2. Extra-judicial confession are proved
2. To prove judicial confession the person
by calling the person as witness before
to whom judicial confession is made
whom the extra-judicial confession is
need not be called as witness.
made.
3.It is unsafe to base conviction on
3. A conviction may be based on judicial
extra-judicial confession.
confession.
4.extra-judicial confession alone can-not
4. Judicial confession can be relied as
be relied. It needs support of other
proof of guilt against accused person if it
supporting evidence.
appears to the court to be voluntary and
true
 Grounds for Relevancy of Confession

 In Shankara vs the State of Rajasthan, a double test for deciding the acceptability of a confession was given.
(i) whether the confession was perfectly voluntary.
(ii) if so, whether it is true and trustworthy

 Confession is Relevant :
 1. if it is made after the impression cause by inducement threat or promise has been fully removed (section 28)
 If it is not made to police officer (section 25)
 If is made in presence of Magistrate when accused is in custody of police officer (section 26)
 RETRACTED CONFESSION

 To recant means to withdraw or renounce prior statements formally.

 A retracted confession is one which is withdrawn or retracted later on by the person making
it.
 Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 guarantees protection against the compulsion
to be a witness against oneself. The application of this provision extends to statements made
during police interrogations
 When a confession has been retracted, the court has a duty to evaluate the evidence
concerning the confession by looking at all aspects.
 The test is to ascertain whether the confession was voluntary or not
 Pyare Lal vs. State of Assam when the same question came up before the court, it was
held that a retracted confession may still be used as a basis for conviction. Its corroboration
would be a matter of prudence and not of law.
 The Act makes no distinction whatsoever between a retracted confession and an unretracted
confession and both are equally admissible and may be taken into consideration against the
accused though it may be that less weight would be attached to a retracted confession
 It is well settled that a person can be convicted on retracted confession alone, if it is found
voluntary and true though as a matter of prudence some corroboration may be asked
for. Abdul Jalil & others vs State; 1985
 Retracted confession of an accused implicating a co-accused cannot be relied upon without
corroboration in material particulars by independent evidence. Ali Asgar vs State, 1986
 Bharat vs State of UP, 1971
 Justice Hidayatullah observed that a court might take into account the retracted confession. But it must look for the reasons for
the making of the confession as well as for its retraction. And must weigh both of them to determine whether the retraction affects
the voluntary nature of the confession or not.
 SANJAY DUTT V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2013
 It was contended that since the confession of the appellant Sanjay dutt has been retracted, hence, it is
not trustworthy and it would not be safe to place reliance upon it. Relying upon State of Maharashtra v.
Bharat chaganlal Raghani and ors AIR 2002 court observed that there is no denial of the fact that
judicial confessions made are usually retracted. Judicial confession are good confession if held to be
made voluntarily and in accordance with the provision of law . Corroboration is not rule of law but rule
of prudence.
 Section 24 Evidence Act – Confession by
Inducement, Threat or Promise

 confession shall be irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if:

 The confession has been obtained by any inducement, threat or promise.
 Such inducement, threat or promise was given from a person in authority.
 Such inducement, threat or promise, was about the charge against the accused person.
 Such inducement, threat or promise must, in the opinion of the court, be sufficient to give the accused person grounds for supposing that by
making it, he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature about the proceedings against him.
 Section 28- Confession Made After Removal Of Impression Caused By Inducement, Threat Or Promise, Relevant:
If such a confession as is referred to 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 is relevant.
SECTION 25 CONFESSION TO POLICE OFFICER NOT
TO BE PROVED.

 NO confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence.
 The purpose behind this restriction is:
• To protect the accused person from third-degree treatment.
• To ensure a proper and fair investigation.
• To bring the actual culprit to the books.
• Section 25 makes only confessional statements made to a police officer as irrelevant. Other non-confessional
statements are not hit by Section 25 even if made to a police officer.
• Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 828, has held that expression ‘police officer’ should not be
contrued in a narrow sense and it would include any person who is clothed with the powers of a police officer.
 Surjeet Singh Chhabra v. Union of India, (1977) 1 SCC 508, has held that ‘custom officers’ are not police officers
for the purpose of Section 25.
 In Balkrishnan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 379, Supreme Court has held that member of Railway
Protection Force is not a police officer. The test for determining whether an officer is a police officer or not is
whether the concerned officer has been conferred the powers of investigation of offences including the power to
initiate prosecution by submitting charge sheet under CrPC.
 In Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2011 SC 2490, Supreme Court has held that officers under
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are not police officers.
 In Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 45 Supreme Court held that nomenclature is not important,
the content of the power exercised is a determinative factor.
 In Dagdu v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1579, supreme court noted:
The archaic attempt to secure confessions by hook or by crook seems to be the be-all and end-all of the police investigation. The police
should remember that confession may not always be a short-cut to solution. Instead of trying to “start” from a confession they should strive
to “arrive” at it. Else, when they are busy on their short-route to success, good evidence may disappear due to inattention to real clues. Once
a confession is obtained, there is often flagging of zeal for a full and through investigation with a view to establish the case de hors the
confession, later, being inadmissible for one reason or other, the case fundles in the court.

In R v. Murugan Ramasay, (1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.) at 268

Police authority itself, however, carefully controlled, carries a menace to those brought suddenly under its shadow and the law recognises
and provides against the danger of such persons making incriminating confessions with the intention of placating authority and without
regard to the truth of what they are saying.
 SITA RAM V. STATEOF UP :
 Accused wrote a confessional letter addressing to Police officer was admissible.
Section 26 Confession Of An Accused In Police Custody To Any
One Else-


Section 26 provides that a confession which is made in custody of a police officer cannot be proved
against him. Unless it is made before a magistrate.
 Emperor V. Jagia : Constructive custody
Section 27 :How much Information Received From Accused May be
Proved

 Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is considered an exception to sections 25 and 26 as it enables
certain statements made in police custody to be proved.
 Conditions of Section 27
 Following are the conditions for a confession to be proved under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
• There must be the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of
any offence.
• The accused must be in the custody of a police officer.
• Such information should relate distinctly to the fact discovered.
 For instance, the statement given by the person was “I will produce a sword concealed in the courtyard of my house with which I
stabbed A”. And the sword was recovered.
 There are two parts to this sentence. The second part i.e. with which I stabbed A, is not relevant. But the remaining part is
relevant, which led to the discovery of the weapon used in the offence.
 Navaneethakrishnan vs the State by Inspector of Police (2018), & Mehboob Ali v. state of Rajasthan it was held that
section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act incorporates the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent facts. According to this doctrine,
the statement made in police custody is subject to the subsequent discovery of facts.
 Pandu Rang Kallu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, it was held by Supreme Court that section 27 of evidence act was enacted as
proviso to. The provisions of sections of Section 25 and 26, which imposed a complete ban on admissibility of any confession
made by accused either to police or at any one while in police custody. Nonetheless the ban would be lifted if the statement is
distinctly related to discovery of facts. The object of making provision in section 27 was to permit a certain portion of statement
made by an accused to Police Officer admissible in evidence whether or not such statement is confessional or non confessional
 Damodar Prasad v. State of U.P (2019). The confessions which
become inadmissible under Section 25 could lead to the discovery of
new facts in the case and would become admissible under Section 27.
 Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67:
 Md. Inayatullah V. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976
 Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2004
 Mehboob Ali & Anr. V. state of Rajasthan, 2012
Section 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 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 question which he need not have
answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, because he was not warned that he was not
bound to make such confession, and that evidence if it might be given against him.
 State of UP V. Singhara singh section 164 crpc overrides section 29 of IEA
 CONFESSION ON PROMISE OF SECRECY, ETC- section 29 lays down that if a confession is relevant,
that is, if it is not excluded from being proved by any other provision on Indian Evidence Act, it cannot be
relevant if it was taken from the accused by:
1. Giving him promise of secrecy, or
2. By deceiving him, or
3. When he was drunk, or
4. Because it was made clear in answer to question which he need not have answered, or because no
warning was given that he was not bound to say anything and that whatever he will state will be used
against him.
 Section 29 lays down that if a confession is not excluded by Sections 24, 25 or 29 it will not be excluded on
the ground of promise of secrecy or of deception or of being drunk, or of being made in answer to question
or without warning that it will be used against him in evidence.
 Section 30- Consideration Of Proved Confession Affecting Person Making It
And Others Jointly Under Trial For The Same Offence-

 When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one such persons affecting himself
and some other 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.
 Principle Underlying: when more persons than one are jointly tried for the same offence, the confession made by one of them, if
admissible in evidence, should be taken into consideration against all the accused, and not against the person who alone made it. It
appears to be very strange that the confession of one person is to be taken into consideration against another. Where the confession of
one accused is proved at the trial, the other accused persons have no other opportunity to cross examine him. It is opposed to the
principle of jurisprudence to use a statement against a person without giving him the opportunity to cross examine the person making
the statement. This section is an exception to the rule that the confession of one person is entirely admissible against the other.
 In Kashmira Singh v. State of MP , the accused Kashmira who was an Assistant Food Procurement Inspector, his
services along with the another food inspector were terminated on a report of the food officer when they were
getting the rice polished in a rice mill. Kashmira was heard twice saying that he would teach a lesson to the food
officer. After a few months the son of the food officer was found missing and his body was found in a well.
Kashmira, Gurudayal brother of Kashmira, Prithipal son of Gurudayal and one Gurubachan, a rickshaw puller in
this case were tried of conspiracy and killing the child. The prosecution story was that Prirthipal led the child, when
he was playing near the Gurudwara, for some distance and then the child was taken on the cycle by Kashmira to a
house where he was murdered. According to the judgment of the SC Guruibachan was not a rickshaw puller by
profession and the rickshaw was hired only for that night for the disposal of the body of the deceased.
 Bhuboni shau v. The King: The confession of co-accused may only be taken into consideration along with the other
evidence in the case, and it cannot alone form the basis of a conviction. It can be used only, if necessary to
corroborate other evidence of record. It can only be used to help to satisfy a court that the other evidence is true
BASIS FOR COMPARISON CONFESSION ADMISSION
Meaning Confession refers to a formal An admission refers to the
statement by which the accused acknowledgement of a fact
admits his guilt of a crime. under discussion or a material
fact in a lawsuit.

Proceeding Criminal only Civil or Criminal

Relevance It must be voluntary to be It need not be voluntary to be
relevant. relevant.

Retraction Possible Not possible

Made by Accused Any person
Use It always go against the person It can be used on behalf of the
making it. person making it.