Confessions Under Evidence Act

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sl No

Topic

Page no

1

Introduction

1-2

2

Confession under Indian Evidence Act

3-4

3

Kinds of confession

5-7

4

Confession when not relevant (section 24, 25 and 26 8-13 of Indian Evidence Act)

5

Conclusion

14

6

Bibliography

15

i

INTRODUCTION

The use of evidence as material in the reconstruction of past events makes a number of important philosophical assumptions1. The law of Evidence occupies a most important part of adjective law. It is for courts to ascertain the existence or non existence of certain facts and to apply the substantive law to the ascertained facts and to declare the rights and liabilities of parties in so far as they are affected by such facts. The means by which the courts inform themselves of the existence of these facts is termed evidence2. The purpose of calling evidence in the court is to try to prove certain facts to be true. Evidence which assists in this process is relevant and that which does not assist is irrelevant. It is the first rule of evidence, and one to which there are no exceptions, that irrelevant evidence is never admissible in courts 3.Bentham perceived 4rules of evidence to be nothing more than an artificial restriction on the science of evidence, invented by lawyers for less than honourable purposes. Evidence may be defined in general terms as any material which has the potential to change the state of a fact-finder’s belief with respect to any factual proposition which is to be decided and which is in dispute. In the words of Stephen5, “the Law of Evidence is that part of the law of procedure which, with a view to ascertain individual rights and liabilities in particular cases, decidesWhat facts may and what facts may not, be proved in; What sort of evidence must be given of a fact which may be proved? By whom and in what manner the evidence must be produced by which any fact is to be proved.

The term confession is not defined anywhere in Indian Evidence Act. But it is thought that an Admission in case of a criminal matter is Confession. The same was stated by Stephen in his digest that that a confession is an admission made at anytime by a person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime.

1

Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence (10th ed, Oxford University press 2008) 3. S.D.Basu, Law of Evidence (1st ed, Allahabad Law Agency 2001) 3. 3 Rosamund Reay, Evidence (3rd ed, Old Bailey Press 2001) 1. 4 Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence (10th ed, Oxford University press 2008) 1. 5 Stephen’s digest of the Law of Evidence as mentioned in S.D.Basu, Law of Evidence (1st ed, Allahabad Law Agency 2001) 3. 2

1

It is essential to curl out distinction between confession and admission. An admission is the acceptance by a person of the truth of an allegiance6. However an adverse admission relevant to the issue of guilt in a criminal case is known at common law as confession. While the common law recognized that a confession might be both reliable and cogent as evidence of guilt, and indeed saw no objection to a conviction in cases where a confession was the only evidence against the accused, the law also recognized that a confession could be regarded as reliable only when given freely and voluntarily7. An admission is a statement that may or may not be a conclusive evidence of a fact in issue or relevant fact but to be a confession, the admission must conclusively prove the guilt of the maker of the admission. For example, in the case where a person being prosecuted under Customs Act told the customs officer that he did not know that the goods loaded in his truck were contraband nor were they loaded with his permission. SC held that the statement was not a confession but it did amount to admission of an incriminating fact that the truck was loaded with contraband material. Thus, a statement which may not amount to confession may still be relevant as admission. Only a voluntary and direct acknowledgment of guilt is confession, but when a confession fall short of actual admission of guilt, it may nevertheless be used as evidence under Section 21. Justice

Thomas8,

of

SC

stated

the

law

in

the

case

that

“The test of discerning whether a statement recorded by a judicial magistrate under Section 164 of CrPC, is confessional or not is not to determine it 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 the statement is confessional otherwise not.”

6

Rosamund Reay, Evidence (3rd ed, Old Bailey Press 2001) 163. Peter Murphy, Murphy on Evidence (10th ed, Oxford University press 2008) 299. 8 Lokeman Shah vs State of WB, AIR 2001 SC. 7

Confession under Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The word ‘confession’ has not been defined under the Act. According to Privy Council, “A confession is a statement made by an accused which must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence9.” An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not of itself a confession10. The confession is a form of admission consisting of direct acknowledgement of guilt in a criminal charge. It must be in express words by the accused in a criminal case of the truth of the guilt fact charged or some essential part of it and a statement that contains a self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to confession. The confession should be a voluntary one that means not caused by inducement, threat or promise. Whether a confession is voluntary or not is essentially a question of fact11. According to Lord Wigmore, “A confession is an acknowledgement in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the guilty fact charged or of some essential part of it. It is to this class of statements only that the present principle of exclusion applies12.” A close scrutiny of the sections 17 to 30 of the Act, discloses that the statement is the genus, admission is the species and confession is the sub-species13. Sir James Stephen in his “digest of the Law of Evidence” defined confession: “As an admission made at the time by a person charged with the crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime” The acid test which distinguishes a confession from an admission is that when conviction can be based on a statement alone, it is a “Confession and where some supplementary evidence is required to authorize a conviction, then it is admission”14. The word “statement” includes both oral and written statement. Communication to another is not however an essential component to constitute a “statement”. Section 164 of CrPC 1973 lays down procedure of recording of confession.

9

Pakala Narayan Swami vs Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47; (1965) 3 SCR 80; Veera Ibrahim v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1167. 10 Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354 11 Shankar v State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 4 SCC 478. 12 Khageswar Khatna v State, 1993 Cr LJ 2374 (Ori). 13 Sahoo v. State of U.P. AIR 1966 S.C. 42; Confessions and its various dimensions (http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7860/11/11_chapter%204.pdf. 14 Ram Singh v. State, All. L.J. 660 1958. All. C.R. 462.

It is a general rule of criminal law that no confession is admissible, unless it is shown to have been a voluntary statement in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear, or prejudice, or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority15. It is the duty of the court to see whether the confession is voluntary or not, and the burden of proof lies on prosecution. Even most gentle threats or slightest inducement, or hope of advantage to the accused will taint a confession. Therefore, an unambiguous confession, if admissible in evidence and free from suspicion of falsity is a valuable piece of evidence possessing a high probative force16. In India, the substantive law of confession is contained in sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, while the adjective law is found in sections 163, 164, 364, 533 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Sections 24 to 26 lay down when the confessions are not relevant i.e. provable. While sections 27 to 29 are limitations to their operation. Section 24 excludes confessions obtained by inducement, etc. Section 25 bars all confessions made to police officers under any circumstances, whether voluntary or involuntary, while section 26 shuts out confessions made in police custody, except those made in the presence of the Magistrate.

Conditions for Relevancy of a confession It must not be caused by inducement, threat or promise (Section 24). It must not be made to a police officer (Section 25), subject to the provisions of section 27. It must be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate when the accused is in the custody of police officer (Section 26). It must be made after the impression, caused by any inducement, etc, has been fully removed (Section 28). The confession of an accused is relevant only against himself, subject to section 30.

15 16

Dr Satish Chandra, Indian Evidence Act ( 3rd ed, Allahabad Law Agency 2005). CJ M.Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence (9th ed, Universal Law Publishing 2013).

CLASSIFICATION OF CONFESSION A confession may occur in any form. It may be made to the court itself, or to anybody outside the court. Confession may be divided into basically two kinds:- Judicial and quasi judicial. When it is made to the court itself then it will be called judicial confession and when it is made to anybody outside the court, in that case it will be called extra-judicial confession. It may even consist of conversation to oneself, which may be produced in evidence if overheard by another. For example, in Sahoo v. State of U.P. the accused who was charged with the murder of his daughter-in-law with whom he was always quarreling was seen on the day of the murder going out of the house, saying words to the effect : “I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels.” The statement was held to be a confession relevant in evidence, for it is not necessary for the relevancy of a confession that it should be communicated to some other person17.

Judicial Confession- A judicial confession is a confession that is made in front of a magistrate or in a court. It may be made in the course of a judicial proceeding. When an accused makes a confession to a Magistrate or Judge, it is called Judicial Confession. Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the rules to be followed by the Magistrate while recording a confession made by the accused to the Magistrate during investigation of a crime. If a confession is made to the Magistrate and recorded properly. It will be substantive evidence against the accused 18. A judicial confession undoubtedly is admissible in evidence. It is relevant fact. A judgment of conviction can also be based on a confession if it found to be truthful, deliberate and voluntary and if clearly proved. It is however, essential that they be made or the free will of the party and with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confessions. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v Navjot Sandhu19, the Supreme Court observed that Confessions are considered highly reliable because no rational person would make admission against his interest unless prompted by his conscience to tell the truth. "Deliberate and voluntary confessions of guilt, if clearly proved are among the most effectual proofs in law". The confession must be made with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession. If any 17

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confession-under-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html. http://aananthnb.wordpress.com/2006/08/06/relevancy-of-confession-statements-made-before-a-police-officerexceptions-to-the-general-rule/ 19 (2005) 11 SC 600. 18

reasonable doubt is entertained by the court that these ingredients are not satisfied, the court should eschew the confession from consideration. Similarly in the case of Mohd. Azad v State of West Bengal20, it has been observed that confession cannot be used against an accused person unless the Court is satisfied that it was voluntary and at that stage the question whether it is true or false does not arise. If the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of a confession appear to cast a doubt on the veracity or voluntariness of the confession, the Court may refuse to act upon the confession, even if it is admissible in evidence. Extra judicial confession- Extra-Judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before a Magistrate or in court. This term embracing not only express confession of crime but all those admissions and acts of the accused from which guilt may be implied 21. An extrajudicial confession is a confession that is made by the party elsewhere than before a magistrate or in a court. It is admissible in evidence under Section 21 and it is proved by the witnesses who had heard the speaker's words constituting the confession22. Thus when an accused makes a confession to his friend, wife, any other relative, a co-prisoner, a police officer, a doctor or any other person it is Extra Judicial Confession is also relevant23. For example, an extra judicial confession made to village administrative officer by accused is admissible24. As held in the case Bhisheshwar Dhani Ram v. State25, the Extra-Judicial confessions embrace those made as well to private individuals as to the officers of justice such as constable police officers etc. If voluntarily made they are receivable in evidence after being proved like other facts. An extra-judicial confession if satisfactorily provided to have been voluntarily made may be the basis for a conviction even in the absence of corroboration. However, the fact as to whether a conviction can be based purely on an extra-judicial confession which does not get any corroboration is highly doubted has been the subject matter of various different judicial opinions26. An extra judicial confession, if it is voluntary truthful, reliable and beyond reproach, is an efficacious piece of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused and it

20

AIR 2009 SC 1307 (1313). Confessions and its various dimensions, Chapter IV http://highcourtchd.gov.in/sub_pages/left_menu/Rules_orders/high_court_rules/vol-III-pdf/chap11.pdf 22 http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confession-under-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html 23 http://aananthnb.wordpress.com/2006/08/06/relevancy-of-confession-statements-made-before-a-police-officerexceptions-to-the-general-rule/. 24 Shiv Kumar v State by Inspector of police, AIR 2006 SC 653. 25 (1963) ILJ 645. 26 Confessions and its various dimensions, Chapter IV http://highcourtchd.gov.in/sub_pages/left_menu/Rules_orders/high_court_rules/vol-III-pdf/chap11.pdf 21

is not necessary that the evidence of extra judicial confession should be corroborated on material facts27. The extra judicial confession cannot be sole basis for recording the confession of the accused, if the other surrounding circumstances and the materials available on the record do not suggest his complicity28. An extra judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its creditability becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. Court must generally look for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon extra judicial confession29. Therefore, we can conclude by the observation as was made by the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP v M K Antony 30, extra judicial confession appears to have been treated as a weak piece of evidence but there is no rule of law or rule of prudence that it cannot be acted upon unless corroborated. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extrajudicial confession is weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witness who speak about such a confession31. Two rules of caution are to be followed as held by the Supreme Court in the case Wakil Nazek v. State of Bihar32 before such action namely: (1) Whether the evidence of confession is reliable. (2) Whether it finds corroboration

CONFESSIONS WHEN NOT RELEVANT (SCETION 24, 25 & 26 of the Indian Evidence Act)

27

Laxman v State of Rajasthan, (1997) 2 Crimes 125(Raj) as mentioned in Criminal Law Manual (Universal Law Publishing 2013) 621. 28 Chaya kant Nayak v State of Bihar, (1997) 2 Crimes 297(Pat) as mentioned in Criminal Law Manual (Universal Law Publishing 2013) 621. 29 Balwinder Singh v State of Punjab, (1995) Supp (4) SCC 259. 30 (1985) 1 SCC 505 as mentioned under Sumeet Malik, Property Law Manual (1st ed, Eastern Book Company 2014) 411. 31 Narayan Singh v State of M.P., (1985) 4 SCC 26. 32 1972 Cr. L.J. 566.

A confession becomes irrelevant and thus, inadmissible, in situations described in the Sections 24, 25, and 26. The confession of an accused may be classified into Voluntary and nonvoluntary. A confession to the police officer is the confession made by the accused while in the custody of a police officer and such kind of confession is not relevant under section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. If it appears to the court that confession have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the change against the accused person proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient in opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable for supporting that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him, it will not be relevant and it cannot be proved against the person making the statement. Section 24 of the Evidence Act lays down the rule for the exclusion of the confession which is made nonvoluntarily33. For admissibility, a confession must be necessarily shown to be voluntary, which is not caused by conditions mentioned under sect 24 and does not mean a confession made willingly as all confessions made in consequences of inducement etc are voluntary in the latter sense of term. A confession which is voluntary is admissible, even if it is false34. Section 24 talks about 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 supporting that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him35. Section 24 enacts the general rule of inadmissibility of involuntary confessions, recognized all over the world and guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Article 20 (3) of the Constitution protects an accused person against testimonial compulsion. A confession made under circumstances which would make it appear to the Court that such confession was caused by any inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority is

33

Confession, Confession under Indian Evidence Act (http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confessionunder-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html. 34 CJ M.Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence (9th ed, Universal Law Publishing 2013) 112. 35 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 § 24.

irrelevant in a criminal proceeding36. Offering such inducement, threat or promise by police officers is prohibited under the Code of Criminal Procedure37. Words “appear to him” in the last part of the section refer to the mentality of the accused38. A confession made in the course of trial or enquiry is required by law to be reduced in writing and hence oral evidence thereof is inadmissible, except to a limited extend as mentioned under section 553 of CrPC39. To attract the prohibition enacted in Section 24 the following facts must be established: • That the statement in question is a confession, • That such confession has been made by the accused, • That it has been made to a person in authority, • That the confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement, threat or promise, proceeding from a person in authority, • Such inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused, and • The inducement, threat or promise must in the opinion of the court be sufficient to give the accused ground, which would appear to him reasonable, for supporting that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him40. If the confession proceeds from remorse and a desire to make reparation for the crime, it is admissible. If it flows from hope or fear, excited by a person in authority, it would be inadmissible41. The term inducement can be meant to include a threat of prosecution if the guilt is not confessed or a promise of forgiveness if it is done. Inducement cannot be strictly defined. It is for the judge to decide in every case. An inducement may be express or implied. Moreover it is not necessary to have been made to the accused directly from the person in authority. Before a confession can be received as such, it must be shown that it was freely and voluntarily made. Thus it is clear that if threat or promise from persons in authority is used in getting a confession

36

Confessions and its various dimensions, Chapter IV http://highcourtchd.gov.in/sub_pages/left_menu/Rules_orders/high_court_rules/vol-III-pdf/chap11.pdf 37 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 § 163. 38 Abdul Ghani v State of UP, (1973) 4 SCC 17 as mentioned under Sumeet Malik, Property Law Manual (1st ed, Eastern Book Company 2014) 412. 39 CJ M.Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence (9th ed, Universal Law Publishing 2013) 119. 40 Confession, Confession under Indian Evidence Act http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confessionunder-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html. 41 Rosamund Reay, Evidence (3rd ed, Old Bailey Press 2001).

it will not be taken into account as admissible evidence42. The burden of proving a voluntary or involuntary character of a confession under English law, lies on the prosecution. It is for the prosecution to establish that the prisoner’s statement was free and voluntary. This rule has been laid down by J Cave in the case of R v Thomson43. Indian Supreme Court in the case of Hem Raj v State of Ajmer44, observed that the rule established in the Thomson case is a well settled principle of law of evidence, however it does not mean that a mere assertion by the accused that he was threatened or tortured or that an inducement was offered to him can be accepted as true without more evidence on the same. Moreover, the inducement must have reference to the charge against the accused person that is the charge of offence in the criminal courts and inference the mind of the accused with respect to the escape from the charge. The inducement must have reference to escape from the charge. Thus, it is necessary for the confession to be excluded from evidence that the accused should labour under influence that in reference to the charge in question his position would be better or worse according as he confesses or no45. The expression ‘person in authority’ does not mean person having control over the prosecution of the accused. The test appears to be, has the person in authority to interfere in the matter under enquiry, as for example, a person engaged in the apprehension, detention or prosecution of the accused or who is empowered to examine him46. Moreover the word ‘appears’ indicates a lesser degree of probability than would be necessary if proof had been required. Section 24 does not require the same cogency of evidence as is necessary to prove fact. The word ’appears’ is important in judicial discretion in matter of accepting and rejecting the confession 47. The value of the evidence as to the confession just like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made48. It is presumed that police holds a position of great influence over the actions of the accused and so there is a high probability that confessions obtained by the police are tainted with threat, or inducement. Further, it is important to prevent the practice of oppression or torture by the police 42

Sarkar, law of Evidence (vol 1, 16th ed., Wadhwa Nagpur 2008). (1893) 2 QB 12. 44 AIR 1954 SC 462; Pon Adithan v Deputy Director, NCB Madras, AIR 1999 SC 2355 as mentioned in Ratanalal and Dhirajlal, the law of Evidence ( 23rd ed., LexisNexis Butterworths 2010). 45 Confession, Confession under Indian Evidence Achttp://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confessionunder-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html. 46 CJ M.Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence (9th ed, Universal Law Publishing 2013) 121. 47 Sarkar, law of Evidence (vol 1, 16th ed., Wadhwa Nagpur 2008). 48 Mulk Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 902. 43

to extract the confession49. Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence act, talks about confession made to a police officer and confession made while in police custody. These are too are not admissible in the court of law. 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 offence50. Under this section, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence, except so far as provided under sec 27. The principle behind this exclusion is that a confession thus made is untrustworthy. The reason for the rule is to put a stop to the extortion of confessions by police by malpractices; and to avoid the danger of admitting false confessions51. Any confessional statement given by accused before police officer is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be brought on record by the prosecution and is insufficient to convict the accused52. In Dagdu

v.

State

Maharashtra53,

of

Supreme

court

noted:

The archaic attempt to secure confessions by hook or by crook seems to be the be-all and end-all of the police investigation. The police should remember that confession may not always be a short-cut to solution. Instead of trying to “start” from a confession they should strive to “arrive” at it. Else, when they are busy on their short-route to success, good evidence may disappear due to inattention to real clues. Once a confession is obtained, there is often flagging of zeal for a full and through investigation with a view to establish the case de hors the confession, later, being inadmissible

for

one

reason

or

other,

the

case

fundles

in

the

court54.

In R v. Murugan Ramasay55,

Police authority itself, however, carefully controlled, carries a menace to those brought suddenly 49

http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/CourtRules/CourtRuleFile_BHX4LV6D.PD Indian Evidence Act, § 25. 51 Q.E. v. Babu Lal, 6 All 509 (FB) as mentioned in CJ M.Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence (9th ed, Universal Law Publishing 2013) 121. 52 Ram Singh v State of Maharasthra, 1999 Cr LJ 3763 (Bom). 53 A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1579. 54 Confession, Confession under Indian Ehttp://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confession-under-indianevidence-act-1547-1.html. 55 (1964) 64 C.N.L.R. 265 (P.C.) at 268 50

under its shadow and the law recognises and provides against the danger of such persons making incriminating confessions with the intention of placating authority and without regard to the truth of what they are saying56. The term ‘police officer’ must not be read in strict technical sense. It includes an officer vested with the powers of police by law whether he is called a police officer or by any other name and exercises other functions also under other provisions of law. The term police officer is wider than the term contained as in section of the Police Act, 1861. However we cannot include persons on whom certain police powers are conferred like a customs officer or an excise officer 57. In the case of Raja Ram vs State of Bihar58, SC held that the term police-officer is not be be interpreted strictly but must be given a more comprehensive and popular meaning. However, these words are also not to be construed in so wide sense as to include a person on whom only some powers exercised by the police are conferred. The test for determining whether such a person is a police officer, is whether the powers are such as would tend to facilitate the obtaining of confession by him from a suspect. Thus, a chowkidar, police patel, a village headman, an excise officer, are all considered to be police officer. Section 26 states that 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. This section further tries to ensure that the confession is not extracted due to the influence of the police. This section is an extension of the principle laid down under section 25. Any confession made while the maker is in custody of the police is invalid unless it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate. The presence of a magistrate is, by a legal fiction, regarded as equivalent to removal of police influence and the statement is therefore considered to be free from police influence59. Section 25 and 26 does not lay down identical propositions as 25 talks of confession made to the police while 26 governs confessions while in police custody made to the person other than police. Therefore, statement made in police custody are considered to be unreliable unless they have been subjected to cross examination or juridical

56

Confession, Confession under Indian Evidence Act http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confessionunder-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html. 57 Om Prakash v Union of India, (2011) 14 SCC 1. 58 AIR 1964 SC 567. 59 http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/CourtRules/CourtRuleFile_BHX4LV6D.PD

scrutiny60. The term ‘Custody’ has same meaning under section 26 and 27. A formal accusation or arrest is not necessary to constitute custody as understood in section 26 or 27 61.It is sufficient if the state of affairs is such wherein the accused can be said to have been under the surveillance or restriction. He will be deemed to be in custody if he is not permitted to depart to his own free will62.Mere absence of the police officer from a room where confession is taken does not terminate his custody of the accused. The word custody does not just mean formal custody but includes such state of affairs in which the accused can be said to have come into the hands of a police officer or can be said to have been under some sort of surveillance or restriction63.

CONCLUSION

What is confession is not defined in the Indian Evidence act or under any other Law. The definition gives under section 17 of the Act for admission, becomes applicable to confession 60

Selvi v.State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974. Chhobylal, AIR 1945 All 667 62 CJ M.Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence (9th ed, Universal Law Publishing 2013) 127. 63 Confession, Confession under Indian Evidence Act http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confessionunder-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html. 61

also. A close scrutiny of the sections 17 to 30 of the Act, discloses that the statement is the genus, admission is the species and confession is the sub-species. It is a well settled law that if once police custody has commenced, the mere fact that for a temporary period the police discretely withdraws form the scene and left the accused in charge of some other person will not render the confession of the accused before that person admissible. Once an accused is arrested by a police officer and is in his custody, the mere fact that for some purpose or other the police officer happens to be temporarily absent and during this temporary absence leaves the accused in charge of a private individual does not terminate his custody, the accused shall be deemed to be still in police custody. The test, therefore, is whether at the time when the person makes an extra judicial confession, he is a free man or his movements are controlled by the police either by themselves or through some other agency employed by them for the purpose of security of such a confession. With the above study it seems that the relevance of the statement of the accused is an important fact in conviction of the accused. But there are various factors involved in the relevance of the statement of the accused.

BIBLIOGRAPHY PRIMARY SOURCES 

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872



The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973



All India Reporters



Supreme Court Cases

SECONDARY SORUCES Books 1. Sarkar, law of Evidence (vol 1, 16th ed., Wadhwa Nagpur 2008). 2. Ratanalal and Dhirajlal, the law of Evidence ( 23rd ed., LexisNexis Butterworths 2010). 3. C.D.Field, law of admissions and confessions ( 2nd ed., Delhi Law House 2004). 4. S.D.Basu, Law of Evidence (1st ed, Allahabad Law Agency 2001) 5. Dr Satish Chandra, Indian Evidence Act ( 3rd ed, Allahabad Law Agency 2005). 6. Batuk Lal, Law of Evidence (5th ed, Orient Publishing Company 2004). 7. Rosamund Reay, Evidence (3rd ed, Old Bailey Press 2001). 8. Vepa P Sarathi, Law of Evidence (6th ed, Eastern Book Company 2006). 9. CJ M.Monir, Textbook on the Law of Evidence (9th ed, Universal Law Publishing 2013).

Websites

1. www.scconline.com 2. http://hanumant.com 3. http://highcourtchd.gov.in 4. http://www.legalservicesindia.com 5. http://aananthnb.wordpress.com 6. http://www.lawteacher.net 7. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in 8. http://delhihighcourt.nic.in