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 |
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.
Hello friends my name is Raj Kumar Majhi, I am a Law student from IILS Siliguri I live in Naxalbari welcome to my Blogs www.rajmajhi.com, this is a educational blogs you will finds laws notes, Articles, High Court, Supreme Court cases, BCI cases and many more you will finds online suggestion, motivational videos, legal Aids etc,.
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon