What do you mean by Confession? What are the essential of a valid confession? Which types of Confession are inadmissible under the Evidence Act?



What do you mean by Confession? What are the essential of a valid confession? Which types of Confession are inadmissible under the Evidence Act?

Ans: The term “Confession” has not been defined earlier but now, the term “Confession” is defined in the Evidence Act. As stated earlier an Admission by the accused person is regarded as Confession. All the provision relating to confession occur under the heading of “admission”. This demonstrates the connection between an "affirmation" and an "Admission”. The definition of “admission” is given in Section 17 of the Evidence Act and also applicable. Section 17 Define “Admission” as a statement oral or documentary, which suggest any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. If a person made a statement in a Civil Proceeding it will be called an ‘admission’, but if the party charged with Crimes made a statement called a “Confession”. Thus in term of the Act, a person confession is a statement with a crime suggesting an inference as to any facts is issue or as to relevant facts. The induction that the announcement ought to propose ought to be that he is liable of the wrongdoing. Sir Stephen in his DIGEST OF THELAL OF EVIDENCE has defined that “A Confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or then again recommending the induction that he perpetrated that wrongdoing. Thus the confession made by an accused person is an acceptance of guilt. According to Sir Stephen, A person charged with crimes made any statement at any time before or after the arrest as regarded as confession. Under Criminal Law, Confession is a direct acknowledgement of guilt.
The Privy Council, on the other side, defined the term Confession, “a confession must either admit in term of offence, or at any rate substantially all the fact which constitute an offence. “A declaration  made by an accused person is not a Confession unless his intention to confess. Thus the confession must be related to offence.

State of Haryana v. Rajender Singh
                   
Facts of the case: it was held that the Confession should be confess by the accused shall be regarded as valid Confession unless his intention to confess. In a statement recorded by the Magistrate merely stated about the assult on the deceased that it was by mistake and accused did not accepted the guilt it was not a Confession and cannot be used against the accused as Confession Justice Thomas of the Supreme Court stated that “The test of discerning whether a statement recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C  is confessional is not (to be known) by dissecting the statement into different sentence and then to pick out some as not inculpative. The statement must be read as whole and then only the Court should decided whether it contain admission of his inculpatory involvement in the offence. On the off chance that the consequence of that test is certain, at that point the announcement is confession booth, generally not.” In this case the Court found that the confessional statement made by an accused person is free from pressure and it can be accepted as confession.

Confession Section 24: A confession made by a blamed individual is unessential in a criminal continuing, if the creation of the admission appears to the Court to have been caused by any actuation, danger or guarantee having reference to the specialist and adequate, in the supposition of the Court, to give the blamed individual grounds, which would appear to him sensible, for assuming that by making it he would increase any preferred standpoint or stay away from any shrewdness of transient nature in reference to the procedure against him.


Condition:- The following are the essential element of a Confession are as follows:-
1.      The question asked to the accused person in the statement is a confession.

2.      The accused person himself should made this confession.

3.      The confession should be made to a peson in authority.

4.      The inducement, threat or promise.

5.      The inducement, threat or promise must relate to the charge against the accused person.

6.      The inducement, threat or promise are present, the confession cannot be taken as evidence and it is sufficiently.

Confession and essential
Confession

Types of Confession:-
There are two types of Confession are as follows:-

1)      Judicial Confession

2)      Extra- Judicial Confession.



1 Judicial Confession:- The Confession made in front of the Judicial Officer like Magistrate or Judges are called Judicial Confession. A confession can take in any form. It may be made to the Court itself. It must be made in a legal proceeding. The Judicial confession made direct acknowledgement of guilt in front of the Judicial Officers or Magistrate without any malpractice, threat, promise or inducement etc., Under Section 164 of Cr.P.C the Confession statement must be recorded and it is called a substantial Evidence.



2 Extra- Judicial Confession:- Extra Judicial Confession is made by the accused other than Judicial Officer. The Extra Judicial Confession can be made in any form. It should be free when the accused confessed and it is one of the relevant factors. The value of confession is determined the veracity of the person to whom the confession is made and who appear to testify to it. The Confession was made by a private person so it is called Extra Judicial Confession. It is free and volunary confession of guilt by an accused person before the Judicial Officers or Magistrate.

Confession to Police(Section25):- No Confession made to a Police Officers shall be proved as against a person of any offence- The Confession made to police officer regard as involuntary confession. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 declared that such confession shall not be take as confession.



Object of Section 25:- The main objective of Section 25 and 26 is to prevent the Police Officers for person being torture. Section 25 clearly says that confession made to the police officers by the accused person inadmissible in evidence. If the confession to police officer were allowed to be proved in evidence the police would torture the accused and force him to confess to a crime which he might not have committed the crime. A confession obtain would naturally unreliable, it would not be voluntary. This kind of confession will be irrelevant in nature.



Effects of Police Presence:- The Confession to police is not acceptance in evidence, the mere presence of the policeman should not have this effect. The confession is given to someone else and the policeman only had given power to hear and present the accused person in front of the Judicial Officer or Magistrate but not destroys the confession. The accused murdered someone and left a letter recording his confession near the dead body of the victim and when the police found that letter near dead body. The accused while made a confession the police was not there even the shadow of policeman was not there. The Supreme Court held that the confession was relevant. There was not police when the accused person made a confession.



Inadmissible Evidence:- Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly says that confession caused by inducement, threat or promise are inadmissible in law. This kind of confession is known as involuntary confession. If the accused is force to confess a crime which he might not have committed the crime, this kind of confession is irrelevant in nature. For example:- when a Magistrate confess to accused person by word saying that what happened and when you committed the crime explain me I will help you, a confession is not admissible the Magistrate made a promise to accused.

Exception-I
Section 28 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 says that confession become relevant when the accused is free from inducement, threat, or promise under Section 24 of the Act and admit his guilt. Where a confession is elicited by deception of some device or practices on the accused it is also admissible.

Exception-II
When the accused drunk:- A confession obtain by promise of secrecy or deception practiced become relevant when the accused committed a crime and does not admit his guilt, putting promise of secrecy accused confess his guilt and that evidence of it might be given against him.

A confession obtain when the accused was drunk equally relevant because it was made in answer to question which he need not have answer. The law is concerned to see that the confession is free and voluntary and if this is so it does not matter that the accused confessed under the influences of drunk.



Sitaram vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Facts of the case: The accused person murdered his wife name Rani and write a letter to the Police for informing that he committed a murdered of his wife. He composed a letter as pursues:- "my dear Darogaji, I have myself submitted the killed of my better half Smt. Sindora Rani. Nobody else perpetrated this crime. I would appear myself after twenty or twenty five days and then will state everything. Once the Law will extend it hand and will get me arrested. I would surrender myself.”

The accused write a letter and left near the dead body of his wife name Rani, it was intention to inform the police officer. The Court decided that the accused wrote a letter to police officer that it was not a confession to police officer, when the accused write a letter to police officer the police was not there even his shadow was not there. The accused write a letter free from inducedment, threat or promise. Therefore the Court held that the confession was admissible in evidence.






Previous
Next Post »