Admission and Confession

CONFESSION

( JUDICIAL & EXTRA JUDICIAL )

AND ADMISSION

All confessions are admissions but every admission may not be a confession. To be a confession, admission should contain an acknowledgement of the guilt. Therefore, all confession are admissions, but every admission may not be a confession.

Now let us see what is meant by ADMISSION.

Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act defines admission which means 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 person and under the circumstances mentioned in section 18 to 23 of the Indian Evidence Act.

An admission must be clear, precise, unequivocal, categorical, not vague or ambiguous. An admission, is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon, though not conclusive, it is nevertheless decisive on the point unless proved erroneous or is validly allowed to be withdrawn.

Admissions though not conclusive proof of matters admitted, but they are relevant under section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. An admission is not conclusive unless it amounts to estoppal. It may be proved to be wrong but unless proved it is a very strong piece of evidence against the maker thereof and is decisive of the matter, though not conclusive.

In Bhogilal Pandya v/s State AIR 1959 S.C. 356, it is discussed by the Apex Court,

“The first group of sections in this Act in which the word statement occurs, are section 17 to 21, which deals with admissions. Section 17 defines the word admission. Section 18 to 20 lay down what statement are admissions against persons making them. The words used in section 18 to 21 in this connection are statements made by. It is not disputed that statements made by persons may be used as admissions against them even though they may not have been communicated to any other person. For eg. Statements in the account books of a person showing that he was indebted to another person are admissions which can be used against him even though these statements were never communicated to any other person.”

The provision that “admission is not conclusive proof” is to be considered in regard to two features of evidence

• The weight to be attached to an admission, would depend upon whether the admission is clear, unambiguous and relevant evidence; and
• Even a proved admission sought to be used against its maker who as a witness is under cross-examination, he should be given an opportunity, if the admission is to be used against him to offer his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute.
• In case of State of Maharashtra -versus- Sukhdeo Singh, reported in 1992 (3) SCC 700, has held that, “The answer given by the accused in response to his examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading on the above sub-section. Therefore, though not strictly evidence, sub-section permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial”.
• 313 of Cr.P.C.
• Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Narain Singh -versus- State of Punjab, reported in 1964 (1) Cr.L.J. 730, has held that, “It is not open to the court to dissect the statement and to pick out a part of the statement which may be incriminative and then to examine whether the explanation furnished by the accused for his conduct is supported by the evidence on the record. If the accused admits to have done an act which would be the explanation furnished by him be an offence, the admission cannot be used against him divorced from explanation”.
• Admission in Civil Cases

• Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, deals with relevancy of admissions in civil cases, which provides that --

  no admission is relevant in civil cases if is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it not be given, or under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

  Confession

  Confession is a statement made by accused which either admits in terms of offence or at any rate substantiate all the facts which constitute the offence.

  In case of Sahib Singh -versus- State of Haryana reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 3956, while defining the word confession, has observed that, “ a confession must either be an express acknowledgment of guilt of the offence charged, certain and complete in itself, or it must admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence”.

  Confession is defined in BLACK's Dictionary

  • A voluntary statement made by person charged with commission of crime, communicated to another wherein he acknowledges himself to be guilty of the offence charged.
  Confession may be divided in
  two classes
  • 1 Judicial
  • 2 Extra judicial
  • Judicial confessions are those which are made before magistrate or court in the course of judicial proceedings.
  • Extra judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before magistrate or court. Extra judicial confessions are generally those made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stretch when section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply.
  • Evidentiary value of confession
  • It must be established that a confession is voluntary and also it is true. For the purpose of establishing its truth it is necessary to examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the prosecution evidence and the probabilities of the case.
  • Extra Judicial confession
  • An extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. In the process of proof of Extra Judicial confession, the court is to be satisfied that it is not the result of inducement , threat or promise. Extra judicial confession possess a high probative value as it emanates from the person, who committed the crime, provided it is free from suspicion.

  • While appreciating the Extra judicial confession, the court has to consider the relevant factors like :-

    1 to whom it is made,

    2 the time and place of making it;

    3 the circumstances, in which it was made and the court has to look for any suspicious circumstances.

    Evidentiary Value of
    Extra Judicial Confession

    It is not open to any court to start with the presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. If the evidence relating to extra judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. However, section 25 and 26 provides exception to this general rule.

    Section 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act are related to confession made by accused in custody before police.

    Section 25 – Confession to police officer not to be proved :-
    No confession made to police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence.

    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 custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate shall be proved as against such person.

    In order to apply section 25 and section 26, it is desirable to consider as to who is a “POLICE OFFICER”.

    Unless an officer who is invested under any special law with the powers of investigation under the code, including the power to submit the report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he cannot be described as a police officer under section 25 of the Evidence Act.

    Police Officer

    The Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases has described as to who is a POLICE OFFICER under various acts, within the ambit of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The various cases includes

    1 State of Punjab -vs- Barkat Ram AIR 1962 SC 276
    2 Rajaram -vs- State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 828
    3 Badaku -vs- State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1746
    4 Ramesh -vs- State of W.B. AIR 1970 SC 940
    5 Illias -vs- Collector of Custom AIR 1970 SC 1065
    6 State of U.P. -vs- Durgaprasad AIR 1974 SC 2136
    7 Balkishan -vs- State of Mah AIR 1981 SC 379
    8 Rajkumar -vs- Union of India AIR 1991 SC 45

    State of Rajasthan v/s Ajit singh and other reported in (2008) 1 SCC 601

    Has held that, section 15 of T.A.D.A.1987 is a clear departure from general law that statement made to police officer is not permissible in evidence.