Prof.

Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Study Material
Law of Evidence- I
B.A.LL. B (HONS) V SEMESTER
Unit-3
ADMISSION AND CONFESSION
Admission and its kinds (Sec.17)
Section 17, Admission defined: 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.
Scope:
Section 17 defines the term “admission.” According to the definition an admission: (i) is a
statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, (ii) which suggests any
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and (iii) which is made by any person under
the circumstances hereinafter mentioned. Such circumstances as “hereinafter mentioned” have
been mentioned in Sections 18 to 30.
Strictly speaking, the admission has been dealt with in Sections 17 to 23 and 31, whereas
Sections 24 to 30 are also admission, but it is used as confession. Under the English law the
term ‘admission’ is used in civil cases, whereas ‘confession’ is used in criminal cases. But, the
Indian Evidence Act has not made such types of distinction. A confession is a statement made
by an accused admitting his guilt. Thus, a confession is also an admission made by a person
charged with crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime.
In CBI v V .C. Shukla the Supreme Court has pointed out the difference between an admission
and a confession. “Only voluntary and direct acknowledgement of guilt is a confession, but, if
it falls short of actual admission of guilt, it may be used as evidence against the person who
made it or his authorized agent, as an admission under section 21.” Admissions so made may
not be taken as conclusive proof of matter admitted but are to be accepted as substantive
evidence of fact admitted.
Principle of Admissions:
The principle underlying the law of admission is that when a man makes statements, he makes
always in his favour except cases laid down in Section 21. By admission a person admits his
liability, because the statement of admission suggests an inference of liability. Stating the
reasons, the Madras High Courts expresses that “if a party’s admission falls short of the totality
of the requisite evidence needed for legal proof of a fact in issue, such an admission would be
only a truncated admission.” An admission therefore, binds its maker and not relates to a
question of law. Admissions are usually telling against the maker unless reasonably explained.
Admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making it. However, it is open to
the person making admission to show why admission is not to be acted upon.
Secondly, an admission is substantive evidence of the fact admitted whether the maker
approves it or not. The relevancy of admission depends on the statement made by the party

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
even though it may go against the maker. “Whatever a party says in evidence against
himself…………………………… What a party admits to be true may be presumed to be so.”
One basic principle is that the admission of facts is a proof against the party making it; but the
admission on the point of law is not binding on the maker. An admission on a point of law is
not admission of a ‘thing’ so as to make the matter of estoppels. And again, the admission of
law by a counsel is not binding on a court and the court is not precluded from deciding the
rights of the parties on a true view of the law.
As stated earlier the principles of admission have been stated in Sections 17 to 20 subject to
fulfilment of requirement of Section 21. It is law of substantive evidence propris vigore. An
admission is the best evidence and though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the maker.
Weight to be attached to an admission made by a party is a matter different from its use as
admissible evidence.
Admissions are not conclusive proof of fact admitted. There must be unequivocal admission
on which a court can base its decision or that the correctness and reliability of such an
admission can be judged from other materials on record coupled with such admission. Where
admission was found to be involuntary and in the nature of explanation and no warning was
given required under section 164(2), Cr. P.C. the admission was held not admissible against
the maker or the co-accused.
If a person voluntarily admits any matter in issue before judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding
and such an admission is not retracted before being acted upon by the other side, it operates as
an estoppel against the person making it; such an admission by person unless explained
furnishes the best evidence. Vague statement in plaint, absence of signing on some blank papers
and misuse of papers for concocting sale deed cannot be taken as an admission of execution of
sale deed.
Defendant was seeking declaration as only legally married wife of the deceased. Clear
admission by defendant was that the plaintiff was also legally married wife of the deceased,
but no evidence was led by defendant to establish plea of divorce between plaintiff and
deceased. Under these circumstances the first appellate court accepted admission of the
defendant as substantive evidence in support of marriage between plaintiff and deceased.
Admissibility of Admissions
The admission is relevant on the following reasons.
1. “Admissions as waiver of proof:
An admission of a party is a statement of fact which dispenses or waives with the necessity of
proving the fact against him. It operates as a waiver of proof. “Admissions are admitted because
the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect of the matter in dispute, whether by acts,
speak or writing, which is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention, is a fact relevant
to the issue. An admission, therefore as an admission is not conclusive against the person
making it, but it may operate as an estoppel under section 115 of the Evidence Act. Under the
proviso to Section 58 the court may ask some other independent evidence to support the
admitted facts. The court is not bound to give judgment in accordance with admission.”
2. “Admissions as statement against interest:

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
It is natural for a man to make statement in his favour. An admission, being a statement against
the interest of the maker should be supposed to be true, for it is highly improbable that a person
will voluntarily make false statement against his own interest.”
3. “Admissions as evidence of contradictory statements:
Where there is contraction between the statements of the party and his case, the contradiction
is relevant. For example, A sues B upon a loan. The account book shows that the loan was
given to C. The statement in his Account Book contradicts his case against B.”
4. “Admissions as evidence of truth:
The statements made by the party about the facts of the case, whether they may go in his favour
or against his interest, should be relevant as representation or reflecting the truth as against
him. Whatever a party says in evidence against himself may be presumed to be so.”
Forms of Admissions:
There as two types of admissions viz.,
(1) Judicial, and
(2) Extra-judicial Admissions.
1. Judicial Admission:
The judicial or formal admission is addressed to the court and is the part of the proceeding. It
is made on the record in the file of the court. The judicial admission may be made by the party
in his pleading, or by stipulation, or by statement in open court. Admission in pleadings or
judicial admissions by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties.
A judicial admission has not been dealt with by the Evidence Act, they are subject matters of
the Civil Procedure Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The procedures have been laid
down in civil suits in Order 12, Rule 2; Order 8, Rules 3,4 and 5; Order 10, Rule 1; Order 11,
Rule 8; Order 12, Rule 4 and Order 14, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. In Code of Criminal
Procedure there are provisions, viz. Sections 143, 251(5), 255(2), 263(g) and 271.
Although the judicial admission has not been dealt with under the Act the Supreme Court has
given due weight age. In Bishwanath Prasad v Dwarka Prasad the court opined that
“admissions, if true and clear, are by far the best proof of the fact admitted.” Admissions as
defined in Sections 17 and 20 and fulfilling requirements of Section 21 are substantive
evidence, propio vigare.
2. Extra-judicial Admissions:
The extra-judicial or informal admission is statement of fact made by the party previously in
course of life or business which is inconsistent with the facts to be established at the trial. The
extrajudicial admissions are called evidential admissions. The Evidence Act only deals with
this sort of admission in Sections 17 to 23.
Admission by conduct:
Admissions by conduct are not included in this section. It has been dealt with under section 8
of this Act. But in some circumstances the conduct, active or passive, becomes evidence for an

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
admission. For example, a woman went to the school for registration of her child, but she did
not enter the name of the father and his profession. On asking she kept silence. Her silence may
mean that she does not know the name of the father or she is not interested to disclose it.
Whatever view is taken it may be an admission for illegitimacy of the child.
Silence as admission:
Silence may amount to admission as if there is no reply or denial. A party may admit the truth
of the matter.
Example:
In Bessela v Stern the girl said to the boy “you always promised to marry me and you did not
keep your words.” The boy did not deny the allegation, but he offered her some money. The
boy’s silence as to promise was held to be admission.
Evidentiary value of an admission:
According to Section 17 an admission is a statement, oral or documentary, which suggests any
inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact and which is made to any person, and under
circumstances mentioned in Sections 18 to 31. Even though an admission plays a very
important part in judicial proceedings, it is only prima facie of proof.
The Supreme Court observed that admissions are very weak kind of evidence and the court
may reject them if it is not satisfied from other circumstances that they are untrue. It is to be
noted that admissions are not conclusive proof of matters admitted unless they operate as
estoppels. The value of admission depends upon the circumstances in which it made and to
whom it is made.
If one party to a suit or proceeding proves that the other party has admitted his case then the
work of the court becomes easier. But, in certain cases an admission is used in discrediting the
parties’ statement by showing that he has on other occasions made statements inconsistent with
the cases afterwards set up. In such cases the truth of admission is not relied upon. Section
153(3) deals with such use of admissions. The evidentiary value of admission depends upon
circumstances under which they are made.
An erroneous admission on a point of law is not an admission of a thing so as to make the
admission a matter of estoppel and the court is not precluded from deciding the rights of the
parties on a true view of the law.
Admission by party to proceeding or his Agent (Sec.18)
Section 18, Admission by party to proceeding or his agent: Statements made by a 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.
By suitor in representative character:
Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not
admissions, unless they were made while the party making them held that character.
Statements made by:

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
(1) 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) 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.
Principle and scope:
Persons by whom admissions must be made and whose admissions are relevant: Sections 18,
19 and 20 lay down a list of persons who can make admissions. Proceeding under this section
may be civil or criminal. But the general rule is that the statements are admissible against the
party only making them and not against any other person. When Sections 18, 19 and 20 are put
together it provide a long list of persons whose admissions also become relevant:
1. Parties to the proceeding (Section 18).
2. Agents authorized by such parties (Section 18).
3. Persons occupying representative character (Section 18).
4. Persons having pecuniary or proprietary interests [Section 18(1)].
5. Persons from whom the parties derived interest [Section 18(2)].
6. Persons whose position is in issue or is relevant to the issue (Section 19).
7. Persons expressly referred to by the party to the suit (Section 20).
1. Parties to the proceeding:
Parties to the proceeding include not only those who appear on the record, but also persons
who are not parties on the record, and they are interested in the subject matter of the suit. They
are considered by law as real parties in interest. It is the basic principle that all statements of
the party in a suit or proceedings are relevant. Defendant was seeking declaration as only
legally married wife of the deceased. She also admitted that plaintiff was also legally married
wife of the deceased. Admission of defendant was substantive evidence in support of marriage
between plaintiff and deceased. The list of properties allotted, as per partition, to the share of
each of the parties proved on behalf of the defendants was held admissible under Section 12 of
the Evidence Act. The written statements of a party in an earlier proceeding were held to be
relevant in the subsequent proceeding.
Where there are more than one plaintiff or defendant to a suit the statements of one plaintiff or
defendant should not bind co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. Admission by one of the co-owners
that the other co-owner had one-third share in the joint properties can be relied upon. The
Supreme Court opined that even if it is relevant due to concern pecuniary interest much weight
cannot be attached to against the co-parties.
The party is bound by his statement only to the extent of his own interests. An admission is
only best evidence against the party making it. Admission made by a witness cannot be

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
regarded as an admission made by the party who called him. Documents partake character of
disputed document cannot be treated as admission for purpose of decree order.
2. Agents authorized by the parties:
The statements of the agent are admissible against the principal according to law of agency or
which govern the statements of coparcener. The agent, of course, should have expressed or
implied authority to make such statement and the statements of the agent can bind the principal
only during the continuance of the agency. But, the fact of the agency must be proved before
the admission of agent can be received.
The agency must be proved before the admission of the agent. Where a station master of a
railway company while reporting loss of goods to the police and gave the name of a missing
porter as a suspect, it was held to be admission against the railway company. The admission
by a party or his agent in a proceeding is admissible under section 18 of the Evidence Act and
by Boards of decisions of the Apex Court and various High Courts it has now settled that the
facts admitted by a party in its pleading need not be proved.
The lawyer is appointed by the client to conduct his case and any statement as to the facts made
by him with full authority of the client is an admission against the client. In criminal cases there
is no provision for an admission by a council.
An admission by one partner made in a representative capacity is an evidence against the firm
provided it is made in the ordinary course of business, where several persons are jointly
interested in the subject matter of the suit an admission of any one of them is receivable not
against himself but against others whether they are suing or sued.
3. Persons occupying representative character:
The statements made by a person who sues or issued, in a representative character is relevant
if it was made during the time when he was holding such character. “This principle is grounded
on the fact that a statement against the interest of a person making it will not be made unless
truth compelled it.” The person’s occupied representative character includes trustees, receivers,
assignee of an insolvent’s estate, executors, administrators, guardian etc. In regard to ancestral
property admission by father would be admissible against the son, the former being the
representative interest.
4. Persons having pecuniary or proprietary interests:
Under section 18(1) the statements of persons who, though not parties to the proceeding, have
a pecuniary or proprietary interest in the subject matter, is relevant provided the statement is
made by him in the character of a person jointly interested. For example, when certain goods
were consigned for carriage, then both the consigner and consignee have interest in goods.
“The requirement of identity in legal interest persons is of fundamental importance.” In a suit
for declaration of title, the statement of the suitor’s father that the defendant was in possession
is admitted. Admission regarding partition of the joint family property made by one of the
beneficiaries to the property is admissible in proof of partition assented subsequently.
5. Persons from whom parties derived interest:
Under section 18(2) the statements of person from whom the parties to the suit derive their
interest in the subject matter of the suit are admissible. “It has to be shown that such statements

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
were made during the continuance of their interest in the subject matter of the suit. A person
of this kind is known as “predecessor in title.” No admission could be made after parting with
the interest.
Admission by persons expressly referred to by party to suit (Sec.20)
Section 20, Admissions by persons expressly referred to by party to suit: 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.
Persons expressly referred to by the party to the suit
This section is another exception to the general rule. When a party refers to a third person for
some information for opinion on the matter in dispute, the statement of third person are
receivable as admission against the person referring. A reference may be made by a party to a
third person only for information about the subject-matter.
When compensation was paid in presence of the witness, the evidence of the said witness would
be admissible as information under this section. The reason is that when a party refers to
another person for a statement of his view the party approves of his utterances in anticipation
and adopts that as his own.
Where an agreement was arrived at between the counsel for parties that if the defendant was to
state on oath in a particular Gurdwara that the suit land was not of plaintiff and the defendant
had not executed any agreement in favour of plaintiff, the suit be dismissed and in pursuance
of the order of the court and on the basis of the agreement, the defendant did take oath and the
suit was dismissed, it was held that the compromise would be covered by Section 20 and the
plaintiff would be bound by the statement of the defendant.
Section 20 is referring to the statements of a referee who is also a third person to the suit or
proceeding. The statements made by a third person are also admissible and the rule is another
exception to the general rule laid down in Section 18 that the admissions by strangers to the
suit are not relevant.
The reason is that when a party refers to another person for a statement of his views, the party
approves of his utterance in anticipation and adopts that as his own. The principle is that a party
makes a reference to a third person for ‘information,’ any statement by that person about the
subject matter of the reference is admissible against the party making the reference. According
to the illustration, if the question is whether a horse sold by A to В is sound. A says to В—
“you go and ask С who knows about it.” The statement of С is an admission.
The word “information” in this section means a statement of fact and not decision of any kind
and the information must be related to the subject matter. Explaining the term “information,”
the Supreme Court held; “the word ‘information’ occurring in Section 20 is not to be
understood in the sense that the parties desired to know something which none of them had any
knowledge of where there is a dispute as regards a certain question and the court is in need of

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
information regarding the truth of that point, any statement that the reference may make is
nevertheless information within the meaning of Section 20.” The information need not be
specially within the knowledge of the person referred to.
In an eviction suit where person having power of attorney for tenant admits arrears of rent the
tenant subsequently cannot resile from such admission. Whereas a party may not be permitted
to resile from his admission at a subsequent stage of same proceeding, it is also trite that an
admission made company to law shall not be binding on the state.
Admission in civil cases, when relevant (Sec.23)
Section 23, Admissions in civil cases, when relevant: 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.
Principle:
Section 23 is applicable only to civil cases and gives effect to the maxim, interest reiplicae ut
sit finis litium. It means that in the interest of the state there should be end of litigation. The
section expressly provides that in civil cases an admission is not relevant when it is made: (i)
upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be given. It means that when a person
admits the liability upon express condition that evidence of such admission should not be given,
or (ii) under circumstances from which the court can infer that the litigating parties agreed
together that evidence of it should not be given.
That is, where there is agreement between parties that the admission will not be proved in
evidence such admission will not be allowed and is not relevant. When such circumstances
happen, in law it is expressed as “without prejudice.” It means “the use of what I commit myself
to, if not accepted by you, is impermissible.” The letter written with regard to an action and
marked “without prejudice” was only privilege for the purpose of that action.
It is very often found that the litigating parties, by negotiations, want to settle their disputes
amicably, and the negotiations usually takes place out of the Court. “Very often for the purpose
of buying peace and settling disputes by a compromise people made so many settlements, if
such settlements are allowed to be proved in court,” it will become impossible for people to
reach any compromise. Section 23 provides protection for negotiation.
When one of the parties to the dispute writes to the other making an offer for settlement in
certain terms, he may stipulate that in case his offer is not accepted his letter is not to be used
against him as an admission of liability.” Such letter of communications made “without
prejudice” and is not accepted to be admissible as evidence. “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,” otherwise the
clever and ingenious man may frustrate the spint of law when he knows the weak points of the

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
case of his opponent. For example, if parties are to be prejudiced by efforts to compromise, it
will be impossible to attempt any amicable arrangement of differences. Admission or
statements which are proved to be wrong or mistaken are not binding on the party making it.
Lord Mansfield once observed that “all men must be permitted to buy peace without prejudice
to them should the offer not succeed, such offers being made to stop litigation without regard
to the question whether anything is due or not.” Thus, the letter marked “without prejudice”
protects subsequent and even previous letter in the same correspondence. The fact is that a
document is stated to have been written “without prejudice” will not exclude it.
Admission and Confession (Their distinctions)
All confessions are Admissions, but all Admissions are not Confessions… The Difference
between Admission and Confession are as follows:

No. Admission Confession

1) If a statement is made by a party in civil If a statement made by a party charged with crime, in
proceeding it will be called as admission criminal proceeding, it is called as a confession

2) The expression ‘Admission’ means The expression ‘Confession’ means “a statement made
by an accused admitting his guilt. If a person accused
“voluntary acknowledgement of the of an offense (accused) makes a statement against
existence or truth of a particular fact” himself, it is called confession.

3) An admission is genius Confession is specie hence all confessions are

admissions but all admissions are not confessions.

4) The Term Admission is applicable to a Confession is the term for admission of guilt
statement, oral or in writing made by a party made in the criminal side.
on civil side.

5) An admission is not conclusive proof of the A confession, if voluntarily and free, may in the
matters admitted and is always rebuttable. discretion of the judge or magistrate, by itself be
accepted as conclusive proof of matters confessed and
is alone sufficient to warrant a conviction.

6) An admission may be proved by or behalf of But confession always goes against the person making
the person making it. it.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU

7) An admission may be made by an agent in While an agent can never make the confession of
course of business. an offense against a co-defendant.

8) Admission by one of the several defendants Confession made by one or two or more accused
in suit is not evidence against other jointly tried for the same offense can be taken into
defendants. consideration against the co-accused.

Problem of non-admissibility of confession caused by Inducement, threat or Promise

(Sec.24)
Section 24, Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in
criminal proceeding: 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.
A confession is an admission by the accused. Section 17 defines admission as statements from
which an inference can be drawn. When any such statement is made by a person in criminal
cases which suggest an inference that the persons might have committed an offence is a
confession. This is an admission of an accused and is called confession. “A confession must
either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the fact which constitute the
offence.” The court must be satisfied that “the inducement, threat or promise if any, has been
fully proved. “Confessional statement is admissible in evidence. It is relevant fact. The court
may rely thereupon if it is voluntarily given. It may also form the basis of the conviction,
wherefore the court may have to satisfy itself in regard to voluntariness and truthfulness
thereof.”
The laws dealing with confession are contained in Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act.
“Confessions are received in evidence in criminal cases upon the same principle on which
admissions are received in civil cases, namely, the presumption that a person will not make an
untrue statement against his own interest.” Thus, “confessions are merely species of
admission,” Law is clear that a confession cannot be used against an accused person unless the
court is satisfied that it is voluntary.
Definition:
The term “confession” has not been defined in the Evidence Act. As stated earlier an admission
by the accused is regarded as confession. Sir Stephen in his Digest of the Law of Evidence has
defined that “a confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime
stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime.” Thus, the confession is an
acceptance of the guilt of the accused. According to Sir Stephen, any statement made by an
accused charged with offence at any time, even before the arrest, may be regarded as
confession.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
The Privy Council, on the other hand, defined the term, “a confession must either admit in
terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute an offence.” A mere
declaration is not a confession unless it was made with an intention to confess. “An
incriminating statement which falls short of an absolute confession, but from which the
inference of guilt follows, is a confession within the meaning of this Act.” The confession,
thus, must be in relation to offence. Compelling of accused to be searched in the presence of
witnesses would not amount to confession.
In State of Haryana v Rajender Singh it was held that a confession must be true and voluntary.
Where the statement though recorded by a magistrate merely stated about the assault on the
deceased that it was a mistake and did not admit his guilt, it was not a confession that could be
used against its maker. The Supreme Court again stated that “the test of discerning whether a
statement recorded by a judicial magistrate under section 164, Cr. PC, is confessional is not (to
be known) by dissecting the statement into different sentences and then to pick out some as not
inculpative. The statement must be read as a whole and then only the court should decide
whether it contains admissions of his inculpatory involvement in the offence. If the result of
that test is positive then the statement is confessional, otherwise not.” Thus, the confessional
statements must be looked as a whole and it would not be right to take insulated portions of it,
and to consider whether any of them amounts to an admission of guilt or not. “It is true that the
confessional statement is found to be voluntary and free from pressure, it can be accepted. But
it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid
down in this connection whether a particular alleged confessional statement should be
accepted.”
In Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab & Haryana the Supreme Court has also held that confession
and admission must either be admitted as a whole or rejected as a whole and the Court is not
competent to accept only the inculpatory part while rejecting the exculpatory part as inherently
incredible.
Essential conditions:
From the above discussions a statement of an accused will amount to a confession if it fulfils
the following conditions:
(1) The accused must admit that he had committed the crime.
(2) From the statements of the accused some positive inferences must be drawn about his
implication in the offence where the accused in so many words admits to have committed the
offence.
(3) If the exculpatory part of the statement given by the accused is inherently improbable it
may be rejected and inculpatory part may be admitted.
(4) The confession must be voluntary, true and trustworthy.
(5) The confession must not be prompted by inducement, threat or promise. A statement could
not be said to be result of any threat, coercion or inducement by police or any other person.
Rule of Admission of Confession:
It is well established rule that a confession must be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole
and the court is not competent to accept only the inculpatory part while rejecting the

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
exculpatory part as inherently incredible. A statement which is partly guilt and partly innocent
cannot be regarded as confession. An exculpatory confession is a confession which contains
the element of either coercion, threat, promise, inducement or hope of advantage. A confession
which is self-exculpatory cannot amount confession. Before Palvinder Kaur case the Supreme
Court had the same view to follow the rule’ what was laid down by the Privy Council in Pakala
Narayana Swami v King Emperor.
But the Supreme Court made a significant departure from its earlier decisions and propounded
that “where the exculpatory part is inherently improbable but is contradicted by other evidence
the court can only accept inculpatory part. Overruling earlier decisions, the Supreme Court
observed that if the inculpatory part of a statement is supported by the circumstantial evidence
it should be accepted and the rest part of the statement be rejected as exculpatory which tends
to exculpate the accused. The statement of the accused giving suggestions that he had been
present when the offence was committed is admissions. Admission, however, incriminatory
but not by itself establishing the guilt of the maker of such admission would not amount to
confession. Where there is no other evidence to support exculpatory part of the statement “the
court must accept or reject the confession as a whole and cannot accept only the inculpatory
element while rejecting the exculpatory element as inherently incredible.” In Champarani
Mondal v State of W.B, the alleged confession read as a whole was exculpatory of the offence
of murder for which the appellant was charged. Such statement could not be the basis for the
conviction and she should be acquitted of the offence of murder.
In a bride burning case the confession was made before the village panchayat by a large number
of persons including the accused who among them had burned the bride was not mentioned.
Such confession was held to be not capable of being used against any person specifically. It
was not confession in any sense of the word.
Nature of Confession:
Confession may be either judicial or non-judicial.
(1) Judicial Confession:
Judicial confessions are those confessions which are made before the Court or to a magistrate
in due course of proceeding. Confessions by the accused to the Magistrate under section 164
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are judicial confessions. Recording of Confessional
statement under section 164 is to take during investigation, but before the commencement of
preliminary enquiry or trial. Under section 281, Cr. PC the examination of accused is made in
inquiries and trials. A judicial confession can be used against the maker of it and is in itself
sufficient to support his guilt. The confessional statement of one accused recorded under
section 164, Cr. PC by the magistrate would be admissible in evidence against the other accused
as both were jointly tried.
The victim, a minor girl was sleeping with her family in a waiting room of travel agency. Night
watchman of waiting room and a handy man of another bus were alleged to have committed
rape. Watchman made judicial confession as to involvement of both of them. Confession was
not retracted. Handy man, other accused, was unable to explain injuries on his face, his absence
from his bus for about an hour and stains on his undergarments lend sufficient corroboration to
judicial confession.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
2. Extra-judicial Confession:
Extra-judicial confessions are those which are made by the accused before magistrate outside
the court. An extra-judicial confession can be made to any person or any definite person. Such
type of confession coming from person who has no reason to state falsely. It has always been
the fundamental principle of the court that a prisoner’s confession outside the court is only
admissible if it is voluntary.
The extra-judicial confession made by the accused before the Ex-Pradhan of the village was
found reliable. An extra-judicial confession has been defined as “a free and voluntary
confession of guilt by a person accused of a crime in course of conversation with persons other
than judge or Magistrate seized of the charge against him. “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: (a) having reference to the
charge against the accused persons, (b) proceeding from a person in authority, and (c) sufficient
in the opinion of the court to give the accused persons 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 to the proceeding against him.” An acquittal on the ground that the accused
made extra-judicial confession before was held to be not proper.
The extra-judicial confession not trustworthy cannot be used for corroboration of any other
evidence. Where there is very possibility for the accused to have been physically and mentally
pressurized for giving judicial confession, such confession would not be sufficient to prove
guilt and involvement of the accused. Where the confessional statement is inconsistent with
medical evidence, the conviction of the accused is not proper. But, when one eye-witness who
was their neighbour deposed that she saw accused throttling the deceased, and another eye-
witness deposed that he saw the accused with blood stained knife and on enquiring, accused
made extra-judicial confession of murdering his wife. Chemical analysis report and post-
mortem report corroborated evidence of eye-witnesses, the conviction was held to be proper.
The evidence of extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, although in given
situations reliance can be placed therefore. Each case is required to be examined on its own
facts. A confession made by a large number of persons before the village Panchayat was held
to be more in the nature of a vague and general declaration. Such statement cannot be said to
be voluntary and so extra-judicial confession has to be excluded for bring them to charge. The
appellant allegedly assaulted his matter with burning wooden plank. Witnesses of extra-judicial
confession did not inspire confidence and their evidence was slippery. The conviction of
appellant merely on the basis of extrajudicial, confession compiled with recovery of weapon
of come at his instance was held not proper.
An extra-judicial confession was made by the accused in committing murder and immediately
revealed this fact to a stranger. It may be difficult to speculate as to what prompted the accused
to confess the commission of crime before the stranger. The unnatural conduct on part of the
accused will not necessarily shake the veracity of the witness’s testimony but it will put the
court on guard to get the assurance of truth in the prosecution case by corroborative evidence
including circumstantial factors.
Probative force of extra-judicial confession:

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Extra-judicial confession is very weak piece of evidence. It must be received with great care
and caution. If the extra-judicial confession is clear, convincing and trustworthy the court only
can rely upon it. It is not the usual practice, rather it is dangerous for the court to convict the
accused solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession when such type of confession is given
the courts require corroboration.
If the evidence of extra-judicial confession comes from the mouth of witnesses, which appear
to be unbiased, truthful, unambiguous and unmistakable that “the accused to be perpetrator of
the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it the extra-judicial
confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction. However, word by word
repetition of statement of case cannot be insisted upon to judge credibility of witnesses’
capacity.
There is no rigid canon of universal application for judging reliability of confessional
statement. Every inducement, threat or promise does not vitiate a confession. In appreciating
the extra-judicial confession, the court has to consider factors like: (i) to whom it is made, (ii)
the time and place of making it, (iii) the circumstances in which it was made and the court is
to look any circumstances. Evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession depends on
circumstances when such confession was made and the circumstances in which it was made,
have to be scrutinised.
In case of extra-judicial confession, the witness must tell the reason as to why he is interested
to repose his confidence. If the evidence of the extrajudicial confession does not inspire
confidence it is not accepted. On the other hand, a confessional statement cannot be rejected
simply because it was alleged by the accused such confessional statement was fabricated.
An extra-judicial confession to a magistrate is wholly excluded. The probative value of extra-
judicial confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it was made. It can be
considered as substantive evidence if there are assuming circumstances and material.
As a matter of principle, the courts require corroboration in extra-judicial confession.
If the evidence of extra-judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the
same can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon. In absence of corroboration
no reliance can be placed on the same, it being a week type of evidence to convict the accused.
Retracted confession:
A retracted confession is a statement made by an accused before the trial by which he admits
to have committed an offence, but he repudiates at the trial. During investigation by the police
officer the accused is willing to admit his guilt, and the accused may be sent to a Magistrate
for recording his statement. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the accused has admitted his guilt
to have committed the offence, he is to record the accused’ statement which may be proved at
the time of trial. During trial the accused on being asked may deny to have made such statement
to the Magistrate. If this happens the confession made by the accused to the Magistrate before
trial is called retracted confession. Retracted Confession made before the Magistrate, even if
voluntarily, requires corroboration.
Although the retracted confession is not safe for conviction unless it is corroborated by
trustworthy evidence, the conviction is not illegal if the retracted confession is believed to be
true and voluntary. If the court is of opinion that a retracted confession forms the basis of a

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
confession if it receives same general corroboration from an independent evidence. It is a rule
of prudence and practice that the court seeks assurance from other facts and circumstances to
corroborate retracted confession. The corroboration must not only be of general nature but must
also be in respect of material particulars.
The retracted confession by an accused cannot be the basis for convicting the co-accused
though it may be taken into consideration against co-accused also. The retracted confession is
weak link against accused and mere so against co-accused. Confession not retracted even at
the latter state of trial made under section 313, Cr. PC can fully be relied upon.
Recording confessional statements under section 164, Cr. PC:
Recording of confession has to be made in the manner prescribed by Sections 164 and 281, Cr.
PC. Such confession has to be made before a Magistrate in course of investigation or at any
time before commencement of the inquiry or trial. Before recording the accused’ confession it
is the duty of a Magistrate to put questions to the accused and to satisfy himself, that the
confession is voluntary. When the confessional statement is recorded in presence of police
officer it is in-admissible. If the confession is duly recorded, then it is relevant and admissible.
The provisions contained therein are required to be strictly complied with.
Confession under TADA:
When the confessional statement is recorded by the Police Officer not below the rank of S.P.
under section 15 of the TADA Act, 1987 it is admissible, but such confession, a like Section
24 of the Evidence Act, must be voluntary. The confessional statement against co accused,
taken as a rule of prudence, requires to be supported by corroborative evidence as well.
Scope of Section 24:
Although the substantive law of confession has been laid down in Sections 24 to 30 it is the
positive rule of criminal law that no confession is admissible unless it is voluntary. Sections
24, 25 and 26 have described the circumstances. If these are not considered to be voluntary
these are not admissible. A confession is voluntary if it has not been obtained from the accused
either by threat, promise, inducement or promise.
Principle:
According to Section 24 the confession made by the accused is irrelevant on the following
grounds:
1. The confession is the result of inducement, threat or promise;
2. The inducement, threat or promise has come from a person in authority;
3. The inducement, threat or promise relates to the charge in question;
4. The inducement, threat or promise holds out some worldly benefit or advantage.
Thus, the Section 24 lays down the rule of exclusion of confession which is not voluntary.
1. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise:
If a confession is not free and voluntary and is obtained by force or violence such confession
is not admissible. Where there is element of inducement, threat or promise in making

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
confession before person in authority, the confession should not be admitted. A confession can
only be admitted if it appears to the court that confession is voluntary. Any threat or promise
used by the person in authority in getting confession it will not be taken into evidence. A gentle
threat, slightest inducement or a very little hope of advantage may taint confession.
It is sufficient for excluding a confession that appears to have been result of an inducement,
even if it is not proved that the inducement reached the accused. When the accused has not
made any complaint that the confessional statement made by him was under pressure or
compulsion, such confessional statement must have been made voluntarily.
It is the duty of the court to judge the nature of confession whether it is voluntary or not. “The
inference of the non-voluntariness may be suggested by the confession itself or by the evidence
of the prosecution or by the evidence adduced by the accused person or by the surrounding
circumstances which the court is always bound to take into consideration.” If the circumstances
create a probability in the mind of the court that confession was improperly obtained it should
be rejected.
In deciding a particular confession made under section 24, “the question has to be considered
from the point of view of the confessing accused as to how the inducement or promise from
person in authority would operate in his mind.” The accused was in custody for a period of
three months and was not allowed to meet his family member. He stated that the recording
officer obtained his signature on some written papers was hold not voluntary. A confession
made by the accused because he thought it best that by doing so, he could have hoped to avoid
the discovery of his entire scheme of conspiracy to misappropriate the large amounts of assets
of Insurance Co., is not voluntary.
2. Person in authority:
Next disqualification of rejecting confessional statement is person in authority. A person
holding a special legal status has authority to influence the proceeding against the accused. “A
person in authority for the purpose of this section must be a person who stands in such
relationship to the accused as to imply some power of control or interference in regard to his
prosecution.” For example, the magistrate police officers, prosecutor, government officers,
doctors’ departmental heads etc. “A person in authority within the meaning of Section 24
should be one who by virtue of his position wields some kinds of influence over the accused.”
The father is not person in authority.
3. Inducement, threat or promise relates to charge:
The inducement, threat, promise etc. must be related to the charge in question. The person
against whom charge has been framed must have been forced to give confessional statement
by the person in authority. The inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the present
case no other cases. An accused was charged with murder and promise was made that if he
confesses the truth in the present case, he will get benefit in another case the promise is not
related to the present case, so the confession is valid.
4. Benefit or advantage Worldly or temporal nature:
The inducement, threat etc. would be sufficient to convince the mind of the accused that he
would get some advantage or avoid evil of temporal nature. Where a person charged with

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
murder was made to make confession to Panchayat which threatened his removal from caste
for life.
The confession was held to be valid. But mere inducement, threat or promise is not enough
unless it is in the opinion of the court that such inducement, threat or promise is sufficient to
cause reasonable belief in the mind of the accused and that by confession he would get
advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him.
Voluntary and involuntary confession:
It is very often called that all confessions are not the basis of conviction. If a confession is
involuntary it is irrelevant. “Under section 298, Cr. PC it is well settled that the determination
of all matters of fact on which admissibility of evidence depends is the province of the judge.
Questions relating to the admissibility of evidence are questions of law and must be determined
by the judge. It is, therefore, for the judge to decide whether an alleged confession was made
voluntarily.” A confession is, therefore, very important piece of evidence.
In Nirmal Mohan v State of Assam:
The Hon’ble High Court after noticing sequences of recording of confessional statements
concluded that it was made duly and voluntarily. Before a conviction can be a basis of
conviction the court has to come to conclusion that the confession was made voluntarily.” A
confession is involuntary when it is made to a police officer or confession given by the accused
when he was in police custody. In both cases the confessions are not relevant and cannot be
proved under sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. In certain situation the extra-judicial
confession or confession made after seizure of documents from accuser’s premises are valid.
Inadmissibility of custodial confession (Sec.25)
Section 25, Confession to police officer not to be proved: No confession made to a police
officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Scope:
Section 25 lays down that a confession made by a person to the police officer is inadmissible
and cannot be proved. The basic object of this section and Section 26 is to prevent practices of
torture by the police officers for the purpose of extracting confessions from the accused
persons. Although both sections seek to achieve same purpose they operate in different fields.
It is well known that the police officer to secure confession uses short cut methods even by
putting the arrested person into third degree so that the arrested person confesses. “The
principle upon which the rejection of confession made by an accused to a police-officer or
while in the custody of such officer (Section 26) is founded that a confession thus made or
obtained is untrustworthy.” This is the reasons for which no confession made to a police officer
shall be proved under section 25 as against person accused of an offence.
The policy behind Section 25 is to exclude all confessional statements made by the accused to
the police officer under in circumstances while he is in custody of the police except as is
provided in Section 27. Section 25 was enacted to put a stop to the extortion of confession. It
was, therefore, enacted to sub-serve a high purpose.
Alike Section 25 the Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that no
statement made to a police officer investigating a case shall, if taken down in writing, be signed

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
by the person making it, nor shall such writing be used as evidence. Statement made to police
officer during investigation does not become admissible merely because he is dead.
Application:
This section does not exclude other statements of the accused made to the police officer except
the confessional statement. What is confession having since 1938 been held by the Judicial
Committee, that “to me a direct acknowledgement of guilt and not the admission of any
criminating fact however grave or conclusive.” The confession made while in custody is not to
be proved against accused unless it is made before a Magistrate.
A confession made before police party of the village, who is not a police officer under section
25 would be relevant. But the confession made to police officer during an illegal search and
seizure leading to recovery of incriminating articles cannot be excluded merely on the ground
that it was obtained under illegal order of remand to police custody.
A confessional statement made by the accused to the police officer during and after
investigation under section 162, Cr. PC is not admissible. But if the statement is treated as one
made by the accused to a police officer in the course of investigation, it is hit by Section 162,
Cr. PC. A confessional statement was held to be inadmissible if it was made to the police officer
after the start of investigation.
The First Information Report (FIR) is not a confession of the guilt. It is in sense admission by
the accused and is relevant. Appellant accused whose name was mentioned only in one out of
three dying declarations and motive ascribed against him also did not find place in FIR in
entitled to acquittal.
The confession made by an accused to an officer of custom is not a confession within the
meaning of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. This confessional statement made before custom
officers is admissible as such officers are not police officers for the purpose of Section 25 of
this Act. Any statement made before the authorities of the Narcotics Department under the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, is admission in evidence and is not hit
either by Section 25 of the Evidence Act or by Section 161, Cr. PC. Under section 15 of the
TADA Act, 1987 the confessional statement was regarded as substantive piece of evidence and
could be used against the accused under police custody.
Confession made before officer under the NDPS Act must be subject to closer scrutiny than a
confession made to private citizens or officials who do not have investigating power under the
Act.
Police Officer:
Apart from the definition mentioned in the Police Act, 1861 the Supreme Court has laid down
the test for determining whether a person is a police officer for purpose of this section, would
be whether the powers of a police officer which are conferred on him or which are exercisable
by him establish a direct or substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by this section,
that is relating to the recording of confession.
The ‘Police Officer’ in Section 25 is wider than the term in Section 1 of the Police Act. “A
‘Police Officer’ means a officer other than a Magistrate whose duty is to prevent and detect

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
crime, the latter duty involving the duty of holding investigation; in other words, a person
holding powers for effective prevention and detection of crime to maintain law and order.”
Confession made to police officer:
Under section 25 any confession made to the police officer can only be excluded and not a
confession made for the police. If the confession made for police officer it is admissible. Hence,
a confession made to the police officer is not relevant. Admissions or statements of
incriminating facts, even a gravely incriminating fact, to the police not amounting to a
confession are not barred under this section. Even in a recent case the Supreme Court did not
agree to accept the argument in the matter of reception of confessional statement made to police
in evidence as applicable in advanced countries. The Privy Council held that silent video-
recording by police was inadmissible.
Confession in Civil suit:
Section 25 merely forbids the use of confession in criminal cases, but not in civil suit.
Admission made to a police officer may be accepted as an admission in civil proceedings under
sections 17, 18, 21 of the Evidence Act.
Confessional statement in TADA not to be used in Non-TADA Case:
Some offences under TADA Act were incorporated initially but later on the same were
dropped. The trial was also conducted for offences under I.P.C. and not under TADA Act. It
was held that the confessional statement made by the accused under the TADA Act cannot be
utilised by the prosecution in instant case as charges were framed only for offences under I.P.C.
Admissibility of custodial confession (Sec.26)
Section 26, Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him:
No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be
made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
Explanation:
In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial
functions in the Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a
Magistrate exercising the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882
(10 of 1882).
Principle:
Section 26 is the extension of the principle laid down in Section 25. While Section 25 applies
to all confessions made to some police officers, this section includes confession made to “any
person” other than police officer, while in police custody. Under this section, it is provided that
no confession made by an accused to any person while in custody of a police officer shall be
proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Thus, the
section is intended to prevent of coercive method of extorting confession.
The section is based upon the same logic that the police in order to secure confession uses all
types of coercive methods, because the accused is put in constant fear and forced to confess.
“The reason is that a person in the custody of police is presumed to be under their influence

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
and it provides opportunities for offering inducement or extorting confession, but the presence
of a Magistrate is a safe guard and guarantees the confession.”
Police custody:
Police custody simply means police control implying restrictions and restrain imposed by
police officer. It commences from the time when one’s right to movement is restricted by the
police officer. It includes both physical control or temporary restriction imposed on a person.
An accused is under police control means he is to stay under direct or indirect police
surveillance.
Thus, a woman was left under the custody of a village chowkidar or when she was left to
Tonga-driver by the police; both are regarded to be police custody. In the second case
confession by the accused to Tonga-driver was held to be irrelevant. Therefore, the custody of
a police officer for the purpose of the Section 26 is not merely physical restriction, but it
includes any kind of police surveillance. To constitute custody of police, some sort of custody
is sufficient under section 26. “The crucial test is whether the accused is a free man when he
makes the confession or his movements are controlled by the police either by themselves or by
some other agency employed by them.
Immediate presence of a Magistrate: An exception:
As a general rule an accused made a confession to the police or while in police custody is not
relevant unless it has been made in the immediate presence of a magistrate.
The confession in presence of a magistrate by the accused is an exception to the general rule
laid down in Sections 24, 25 and 26. A confession by the accused in presence of a magistrate
is relevant only when it is done in accordance with rules laid down in Sections 164 and 364 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the magistrate fails to observe procedures and
formalities of Sections 164 and 364, Cr. PC, even though the confession is made by the accused
in immediate presence of a magistrate, it is inadmissible.
When a magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions under Section 164,
Cr. PC. or who receives confession at a State when Section 164, Cr. PC. does not apply, is an
extra-judicial confession. A confession made while in custody is not to be proved against the
accused as the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, do not permit it unless it
is made before a magistrate.
If the confession was not recorded by a competent magistrate the confession of a person in
police custody would not be relevant. Where the accused were in police custody and no
magistrate was present their admission of the accused is not an admission in evidence. It is said
by the Supreme Court that the strict rule under section 26 is not applicable to a departmental
enquiry against a government employee.
In case of oral statement, other than that required to be recorded, made in presence of a sub-
inspector and a constable who had taken the accused under arrest to a magistrate on leave, is
not admissible. “The question arose in some cases whether a confession made by an accused
before a magistrate not reduced to writing may be proved by oral evidence and it has generally
been answered in the affirmative. An oral confession which is not open to any exception under
sections 24, 25 and 26 is relevant fact as an admission under section 21 and may be proved
against the accused by the oral evidence of the magistrate.”

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Admissibility of information received from an accused person in custody (Sec.27)
Section 27, How much of information received from accused may be proved: Provided
that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information,
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered,
may be proved.
Scope:
There are two exceptions laid down in the Evidence Act so far, the admissibility of confession
made by an accused is concerned. First, exception relates to when confession is made by the
accused in immediate presence of a magistrate (Section 26) and the other has been mentioned
in Section 27 i.e. when the confession leads to discoveries of facts. The section permits the
proof of all kinds of information whether contained in a confession or not, and therefore goes
beyond the provisions of Sections 25 and 26.
Principle:
Section 27 lays down that during the period of investigation or during police custody any
information is given by the accused of an offence to the police officer that leads to discover
any fact, may be proved whether such information amounts to confession or not, and obtained
under inducement, threat or promise. Section 27 is by way of a proviso to Sections 25 and 26
and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to
the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused.
Under sections 24, 25 and 26 a confession which is inadmissible would be admissible under
section 27 subject to discoveries of facts on the basis of information given by the accused.
Section 27 is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession
made in police custody which is distinctly relates to the facto discovered in admissible in
evidence agreement the accused.
Example:
‘A’ was arrested by the police officer on a charge of murder. ‘A’ confessed to the police officer
that he had committed murder with a dagger what he had hidden in the neighbouring field. On
the basis of such information the police officer recovered the dagger from the field. The
statement regarding hiding of dagger to the police officer is relevant.
Under the section, excepting the confession relating to recoveries of facts no such guarantee or
assurance attaches to the rest of the statement which may be indirectly or remotely related to
the fact discovered. It arises by reason of fact that information given by the accused exhibited
knowledge or mental awareness of information as to its existence at particular place. Fact
discovered, therefore, has to be a combination of both the elements, that is, physical object and
mental condition.
Essential requirements of the section:
The following conditions are necessary for the application of the Section 27.
1. The fact must have been discovered in consequence of information received from the
accused.

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
2. The person giving information must be accused of an offence.
3. He must be in custody of a police officer.
4. That portion only of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be
proved.”
5. The discovery of fact must relate to the commission of crime in question.
6. Before the statements proved somebody must depose that some article was discovered in
consequence of the information received from the accused.
Constitutional validity of Section 27:
In State of U.P. v Deoman the validity of Section 27 of the Evidence Act was challenged on
the ground that it was offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In appeal the High
Court declared Section 27 to be unconstitutional as it created unjustifiable discrimination
between “persons in custody” and “persons out of custody.” Further appeal was made by the
State of U.P. against the judgment of the High Court in the Supreme Court. It was held by the
Supreme Court that the distinction between “persons in custody” and “persons out of custody”
had little practical significance. By majority decision the Section 27 was declared to be
constitutional and the conviction awarded by the Session judge was restored.
“The legal position therefore remains as inconsistent as ever in spite of the decision of the
Supreme Court viz., that while information given by a person in police custody leading to
discovery of a fact may be proved, such information, coming from a person not in custody is
not probable though both satisfy the same test of relevancy provided in Section 27, e.g. the
discovery of a fact.”— SARKAR.
Object of Section 27:
Basic object of the section is to provide evidence for admission and such evidence relates to
some sort of discovery of fact. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to
render evidence holding to discovery of on fact admissible, the information must come from
any accused in custody of the police. It is well settled that recovery of object is not discovery
of fact envisaged in the section. Recovery so made prusuant to discovery statement can be
relied upon to complete chain of events relating to crime.
However, where there is direct evidence by the eye-witness non-recovery of the offending car
said to have been used by the accused will be no ground to disbelieve otherwise the credit
worthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
Where the recovery of panchnama of the sticks, the alleged crime article, had no mention that
the sticks had any marks of blood, the evidence of recovery of the sticks cannot constitute
incriminating evidence against the accused. Evidence of recovery cannot be relied upon for
conviction “sofar as recovery of the sword as concerned, the same was not sent for any
examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report if any was not exhibited and
even no question in that regard was put to the accused while he was examined under section
313 of the Code.”(Cr. P.C.). Non discovery of weapon sickle does not go to discreet the witness.
Discovery statement of the accused and recovery of revolver in pursuant thereto is an important
circumstance against the accused which can be taken into consideration. Unless the disclosure

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
statement is proved, the consequential recovery at the instance of the accused is not covered
within the framework of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Where in a plan an unknown woman
was raped and her dead body was buried, disclosure statement of accused persons pointing out
the place of rape was not admissible.
Validity of information whereby “discovered” may be proved:
Discovery of facts, however important, does not render admissible that the accused informed
in connection with discovery. ‘So much of the information’ which distinctly relate to the facts
thereby discovered is admissible. The section seems to be leased on the view that if a fact is
actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded. Thereby
that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence.
However, since discovery of fact as a result of information from the accused is not admissible
under its relevancy is established by other evidence “showing the connection between the fact
discovered and the offence charged with the accused”. Articles discovered by another house
owner on the information provided by the accused were held to be discovered at the instance
of the accused.
Therefore, the extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability.
What was admissible in evidence is only that part which would come within the purview of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act and not the rest. Mere statement that the accused led the police
and the witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the
information given.
The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent event. In criminal conspiracy and murder case the investigation was able to locate
STD booth from where the accused talked with others. This was discovered at instance of
known accused persons. It was held that the evidence of witness clearly proved recoveries and
discovers.
Confession by co-accused (Sec.30),
Retracted confession and its evidentiary value
Section 30, Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others
jointly under trial for same offence: When more persons than one are being tried jointly for
the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some
other of 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.
Explanation:
“Offence,” as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit the offence.
Illustrations:
(a) A and В are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said— “B and I murdered
C.” The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that С was murdered by A
and B, and that В said— “A and I murdered C.”

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as В is not being
jointly tried.
Scope:
This section is an exception to the general rule that a confession of an accused is inadmissible
against other accused persons who are jointly tried. It makes a departure from the common law
of England. Section 30 lays down when there is more than one accused who are jointly tried
for the same offence and a confession made by one of them at the trial, the court may take into
consideration the confession against all accused [(Illustration (a)]. If the statement of the
accused does not amount to a confession it is not admissible against co-accused. Because, a
confession of an accused especially when it is self-exculpatory, cannot be used against a co-
accused, when the confessing accused was not facing any trial. “The principle on which the
confession of one accused is allowed to be used against co-accused is that self- implications
are supported to provide some guarantee of the truth of accusation made against the other.” It
is also not necessary that the confession of the co accused must be made to a magistrate.
Principle:
The principle that a confession by one accused may be taken into consideration against co-
accused is founded on: (i) more than one accused are jointly tried, (ii) they are tried for the
same offence, (iii) confession should have been made by one of them, and (iv) the confession
should be legally proved. “On the whole, the section has not been looked upon with favour by
the judges who have to administer the law, and it has been laid down in an uninterrupted series
of cases that a confession by an accused is not to be treated as “evidence” (in the sense used in
Section 3) against his co-accused, but it may only be taken into consideration (i.e. an element
in the consideration of all facts in the case) along with other evidence and that a conviction
based solely on such confession send unless substantially corroborated by independent
evidence”—SARKAR.
Confession of co-accused:
The Privy Council once observed that “a confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of
a very weak type. It does not come within the definition of ‘evidence’ contained in Section 3.
It is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused, and it cannot be tested
by cross-examination.” It again observed that “the confession is only one element in the
consideration of all the facts proved in the case. It can be put into the scale and weighed with
the other evidence.”
The Supreme Court accepted the views of the Privy Council and observed that the confession
of an accused against the co-accused is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term. If the
co-accused escapes from custody and the charge itself were framed as proclaimed offender, the
confession of the co- accused cannot be made use.
Although the principles laid down in Section 30 is not very sound policy of the law “seems to
rest on the recognition of the palpable fact that such a confession cannot fail to make an
impression on the Judge’s mind, which it was therefore to control limits than to ignore
altogether.”
In Prakash Dhawal Khairnar v State of Maharastra it was held that confessional statement of
one accused recorded under section 164, Cr. PC by a magistrate would be admissible against

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
the other accused as both were jointly tried. If the confession is not recorded by the magistrate
under section 164, Cr. PC it may be used under section 30 of the Evidence Act if they are not
regulated by Section 24 of this Act.
In TADA case the Section 15 of the TADA requires joint trial of the accused, but there is a
point of difference; while under section 30 of the Evidence Act the confession of an accused
may be taken into consideration against co-accused under section 15 of the TADA, the
confession is admissible against the co-accused and is the substantive evidence against the co-
accused.
The principle of admissibility of confession under Section 15 of TADA has to be distinguished
from the provisions of Cr. PC. and Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act. The provision of
Section 15 of the TADA is mandatory in nature and Section 30 of the Evidence Act is
discretionary in nature and the print of admissibility of confession against co-accused when
jointly tried. The confession recorded by the police officer under section 32(1) of the
Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 cannot be taken into consideration under section 30 against
the co-accused.
Rule to be observed:
“The confession of an accused person is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as
defined in Section 3. It cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used in
support of other evidence. The proper way is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused
excluding the confession altogether from the consideration and see that if it is believed,
conviction should safely be used on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the confession,
then, of course, it is not necessary to call the confession in aid.
However, cases may arise where the judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it
stands, even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an event
the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other evidence, and
thus fortify himself in believing that without the aid of the confession would not be prepared
to accept it.
The confession of a co-accused is not so substantive evidence, it can be pressed in service only
when the court is inclined to accept the other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking for an
assurance in support of his conclusion deducible from the other evidence.” A statement of an
accused would be admissible against a co-accused only under Section 30 of the Evidence Act.
Such a statement of the co-accused is required to be corroborated by adduction of independent
evidence. A confession of a co-accused can be treated as substantive evidence and can be
pressed into service only when the Court is inclined to accept other evidence and sees the
necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of the conclusion deducible therefore.
Recently the Supreme Court has observed that the confession of a co-accused can be used only
for corroborative purposes but not as a substantive evidence. The confession cannot be held to
be used only to corroborate other substantive evidence produced by the prosecution. A
confession intended to be used against a co-accused stand on lower level than an accomplice
evidence, because the latter is at least tested by cross-examination while the former is not.
It was also held by the Supreme Court that the Section 30 permits the taking into consideration
of the confession of an assessed against co-accused subject to conditions laid down in the

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
section. Where the statement of the accused does not contain anything incriminating the
accused, it cannot be used against a co accused. Thus, the confession of co-accused cannot be
substantive evidence against other accused. “It is per is not evidence.”
Co-accused being jointly tried:
A confession by an accused may be taken into consideration provided other co-accused are
jointly tried for the same offence. To make a joint trial legal, the accusation must be a real one
and not merely an excuse for a joinder of charges which otherwise cannot be joined. “Same
offence” means identical offence and not an offence of the same kind. Where an accused who
was jointly tried but died before the judgment, it was held that the confession was admissible
against his co-accused and could be used only for corroborating the other evidence on the
record and not as substantive evidence. The stress in section so is pre-requisite of joint trial for
the same offence.
Confession of co-accused and testimony of accomplice:
The confession of co-accused under section 30 does not have higher probative value than that
of the testimony of an accomplice in the court of law. The confession of co-accused alone is
not legally sufficient to uphold a conviction.
RETRACTED CONFESSION AND ITS EVIDENTIARY VALUE
A confession is substantive evidence against its maker, if it has been duly recorded and suffers
from no legal infirmity, it would suffice to convict the accused who made the confession,
though as a matter of prudence, the Court usually expects at least some corroboration before
acting upon it. But before acting upon a confession, the Court must be satisfied that it
is voluntary and true. Voluntariness depends upon whether there was any threat, inducement
or promise. The truth is to be judged in the context of the entire prosecution case i.e. whether
it fits into the proved facts and does not run counter to them. If these two conditions are
satisfied, it becomes the most reliable piece of evidence against the maker.
Of Retracted Confessions
Retraction may be defined as the act of recanting.[3] To recant means to withdraw or renounce
prior statements formally.[4] A retracted confession is one which is withdrawn or retracted
later on by the person making it.
Retraction of statements is something that happens in most criminal cases. The reason behind
the same may be the inadequate police protection or the ill-developed mechanism for witness
protection or the inherent securities of the witnesses or the accused under the influence of the
status of the opposing party as happens in almost all the high-profile cases.
It should be noted here that 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.[5]
Right to Retract Confessions
Retraction of a confession is very common since it is often procured through non-validating
means An extraordinarily large number of confessions, in criminal cases, culminate in

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
retractions, as a matter of course. [6] In India, retractions are as plentiful as confessions. [7] This
goes to show that most confessions do no proceed from a feeling of penitence and remorse as
they should, but that they have their source in the inducement, threat, torture, hope or any other
non-validating cause.[8] Thus, to retract from a confession is the right of the confessor and all
the accused have invariably adopted that right.[9]
Concept of Retraction flows from the Constitutional Right against Self-Incrimination
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.[10] This means that no person can be forced to make a confession,
against his will. Thus, the test of relevancy of a confession is whether it is voluntary or
not.[11] Since there is a danger that the confessor may implicate himself against his will, the law
regarding the same is so strict that a confession that is not voluntary is rejected even if it is
true.[12] Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act have been legislated to take care of this
constitutional right by excluding from evidence all self-incriminating statements that have not
been made voluntarily.[13] A right to retract is important because a retraction puts the court on
enquiry as to the voluntary character of the confession. [14] Moreover, to withdraw from what
has been said previously is to be interpreted as an extension of civil liberty. [15]
Retraction must be affected, especially when the Confession is Involuntary
When a confession has been retracted, the court has a duty to evaluate the evidence concerning
the confession by looking at all aspects.[16] The first test that the court is required to apply with
regard the same is to ascertain whether the confession was voluntary or not. [17] Satisfaction of
this test is a sine qua non for admissibility of the confession in evidence. [18] The word
‘voluntary’ used in respect of a confession refers to a confession that is not caused by
inducement, threat or promise.[19] If it appears to the court that a confession has been procured
using any inducement, then it would be rendered irrelevant. [20] A well-grounded suspicion
based on the circumstances of the case may exclude a confession[21] since the use of the word
‘appears’ in Section 24 suggests a lesser degree of probability than ‘proof’ defined in Section
3 of the Evidence Act.[22] It is idle to expect the accused to ‘prove’ the inducement for in most
cases such proof cannot be available.[23] In light of the same, anything from the barest suspicion
to positive evidence is considered sufficient for discarding a confession.[24]
Evidentiary value of Retracted Confessions
status of retracted confessions under the Act
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.[25]
Particulars of a retracted confession
As the confession is required to be clear, specific and unambiguous, its retraction should also
not be ambiguous, vague or imaginary. The person alleging retraction of confession or his
earlier inculpatory statement must satisfy the court that that he had withdrawn from his
statement at the earliest possible time [26] and without any afterthought or advice and must
give reasons for the same.[27]

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
Weight attached to a retracted confession
The weight to be attached to a retracted confession must depend on the circumstances under
which the confession was given, and the circumstances under which it was retracted including
the reasons given for retraction.[28]
Importance of corroboration
It is only as a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctioned itself into a rule of law that
retracted confession cannot be made the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. It is
not necessary that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession is separately and
independently corroborated. It would be sufficient if the general trend of the confession is
substantiated by some evidence which would tally with what is contained in the confession
[29] i.e. corroborated in general particulars.
It is also a general rule that it is unsafe to base the conviction of the accused upon his retracted
confession even when it is held to be true and voluntary unless it is corroborated in material
particulars by independent evidence.[30]
Value of retracted confession against Co-accused and Accomplice
Where more persons than one is being tried jointly for the same offence, a confession made by
any one of his co-accused can be taken into consideration by the court not only against the
maker but also against his co-accused. The Act nowhere provides that if a confession is
retracted, it cannot be taken into consideration against the co-accused or the confession
accused.[31] A retracted confession can be considered against but it cannot be the basis for
conviction of co-accused.[32]
However, the standard of corroboration is quite different in such cases. In the case where the
resided statement is being used against the confessing accused, general corroboration is
sufficient whereas in cases of co-accused or an accomplice, corroboration in material
particulars in necessary.[33]
It should be noted that it has been held that a retracted confession can be taken into
consideration to indicate the prima facie involvement of others.[34]
Comparison with English Law
It is submitted that the Law in England differs from that in India to the extent that an accused
person can be convicted on his own confession, even when it is retracted if the Court is satisfied
with its truth. In India, there is a further requirement of corroborative evidence to support it.[35]
In conclusion, it is submitted that retraction is a very important principle of the Law of
Evidence. It has a strong practical foundation. Furthermore, to give a gist of this article, the
following principles constitute the law relating to retracted confessions:
1. It is not illegal to base a conviction upon the uncorroborated confession of an accused
person, provided that the court is satisfied that the confession was voluntary and true in
fact.
2. From the viewpoint of legality, the fact that a confession has been retracted is
immaterial,

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
3. A confession is not regarded as involuntary merely because it has been retracted.
4. Before using the retracted confession, it must be proved to be true and voluntary.
5. In cases of co-accused, the confession must be corroborated by material particulars.
6. A person has a general right of retraction which flows from the principle against self-
incrimination.

[3] P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, 4122 (3rd Edition, Volume IV, Wadhwa and
Co, Nagpur, 2005)
[4] P Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced Law Lexicon, 3977 (3rd Edition, Volume IV, Wadhwa and
Co, Nagpur, 2005)
[5] Re: Kodur Thimma Reddi and Ors, AIR 1957 AP 758
[6] Queen Empress v. Babulal, (1884) ILR 6 All 509
[7] R v. Thompson, [1893] 2 QB 12
[8] R v. Thompson, [1893] 2 QB 12; The Deputy Legal Remembrancer v. Karuna
Baistobi (1895) ILR 22 Cal 164; Dikson Mali v. Emperor, AIR 1942 Pat 90
[9] State of Tamil Nadu v. Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan, AIR 2001 SC 2778; Rajen Boro v.
State of Assam, 2003 (2) GLT 632
[10] Nandini Satpathy v. P L Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025
[11] Kalawati v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1953 SC 131
[12] Emperor v. Bhagi Vedu, (1906) 8 BomLR 697; Emperor v. Panchkari Dutt, (1925) ILR
52 Cal 67; In Re: Tadipamula Satyanarayana, AIR 1959 AP 419
[13] Ram Lalwani v. The State, 1981 CriLJ 97 (Del)
[14] Emperor v. Krishna Babaji, (1933) 35 BomLR 728
[15] Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230
[16] State of Tamil Nadu v. Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan, AIR 2001 SC 2778; Rajen Boro v.
State of Assam, 2003 (2) GLT 632
[17] Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC 1248
[18] Id.
[19] Shanker Rao Chitnavis v. Ganpat Rao Pande, AIR 1925 All 606
[20] The Indian Evidence Act 1872, §24
[21] Emperor v. Panchkari Dutt, (1925) ILR 52 Cal 67
[22] Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094
[23] Vishnu v. Achut, AIR 1925 All 627; Bhukhin v. Emperor, AIR 1948 Nag 344

SFA
Prof. Javaid Talib
Prof. Md. Ashraf
Dept. of Law, AMU
[24] Emperor v. Panchkari Dutt, (1925) ILR 52 Cal 67
[25] Re: Kodur Thimma Reddi and Ors, AIR 1957 AP 758
[26] Taj Mohammad Khan v. State of Karnataka, 1998 CrLJ 2312 (Kant)
[27] Subramania Goundan v. The State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66
[28] Bhuboni Sahu v. The King, AIR 1949 PC 257
[29] State of Uttar Pradesh v. Boota Singh & Ors, AIR 1978 SC 1770
[30] Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094
[31] Ram Prakash v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 1
[32] Shrishail Nageshi Pare v. State of Maharashtra, (1985) 2 SCC 341
[33] Subramania Goundan v. The State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66
[34] Mohan Wahi v. State, 1982 CrLJ 2040 (Del)
[35] Yap Sow Keong & Anor v Public Prosecutor, [1947] MLJ 90

Suggested Readings:
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Relevant Statutory Provisions)
2. Monir: Law of Evidence
3. Batuk Lal: Law of Evidence
4. Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal: Law of Evidence
5. Avtar Singh: Principles of Law of Evidence
6. Tandon: Indian Evidence Act
7. R. Dayal: Indian Evidence Act
8. Dr. Satish Chandra: Indian Evidence Act

SFA