Introduction:
Confession is considered to be an open declaration of something which made one guilty of doing an act. Mostly these confessions are made voluntarily. Generally, in court, these confessions are made by the convicted person. Such confessions are taken either as a guilty plea or a conviction following trial and they are considered as the prominent evidence for the wrongful act.
The maxim “habemus optimum-testem, confidante reum” denotes that the best evidence for an illegal activity is a confession made by an accused against him.[1] If a confession is obtained with oppression then such confessions are not admissible in court. Some laws are also enacted on confession. Indian Evidence Act and Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 state some of the rules for the admissibility of a confession in court and also in other official places. Mostly all confession leads to admission. In this article, the author deals with the admissibility of confessions in certain areas.
Judicial Confession
The formal confession which is made before the magistrate is considered as the Judicial Confession. Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states about the recording of confessions before a magistrate. In Preetam vs state of Madhya Pradesh[2], as the Magistrate did not comply with the provision laid down in Section 164, the Supreme Court rejects such a case and it cannot behold as the valid piece of evidence. In the course of an investigation, any magistrate can record any confession made to him even before the commencement of the inquiry or trial. An accused should know that the voluntary confession made by him can be considered as prominent evidence against him.
There is no need for witnesses in judicial confession. In the case of Bhagwan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh[3], the accused made a judicial confession to the magistrate. But that confession was made when he was in police custody. Later that confession was retracted by the accused before the court stating that it was made involuntarily. So the court cannot rely on such confession. The willingness of the accused is considered the most during such confessions. State of Maharashtra vs Damu Gopinath Shinde[4] shows the voluntary confession of the accused to the magistrate. Such confessions are admissible in court.
Extra-Judicial Confession
The confessions which are made in police custody or to any other person who is not authorized by law are considered as informal confession and it is also called as the extra-judicial confession. There is a need for witnesses in this type of confession.
Section 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the confession which is made in police custody. Such types of confessions are inadmissible in court if it is not made before a Judicial Magistrate and it cannot be considered as evidence against the accused even if the confession was made by him.
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the amount of information that can be proved as evidence in a court. In the case of Kishore Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh[5], the confession was made voluntarily to the Pradhan who was accompanied by the police officer. It was not made before the magistrate. So the court rejected the case. Some confession made to the police is admissible in evidence when such direct to the discovery of any particular fact about the case (section 27of Indian Evidence Act).
Confession Under Pace Act
The Police and Criminal Evidence act also states that the disputed confession cannot be taken as evidence against the accused unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was not by oppression. Here the word “oppression” is also defined it includes torture, threat of violence, etc. Under section 76 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE), though the confession made in police custody is inadmissible it may not affect the admissibility of fact which is discovered as a result.
Such confession may also direct to obtain other evidence regarding the case. Section 76(4)(a) of PACE states that sometimes the confessions wholly are partly excluded under 76 and do not affect the admissibility in evidence of any fact discovered as a result of the confession.[6] In the case of Nabi Mohd. Chand Hussain vs The State of Maharastra[7], the confession made lead to discovery but it cannot be used against the co-accused (section 30 of Indian Evidence Act).
Other Confessions
Retracted confession is the one which was made by the accused once and later it was denied by the same person before the court. This confession can be used against that person if it was supported by independent and corroborative evidence. In the case of Haroon Haji Abdulla vs The State of Maharastra[8], the court held that the retracted confession was not admissible in evidence and it was irrelevant against a co-accused.
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act states that in a joint crime if a confession was made by one of the accused affecting him and affects other persons who are involved in the crime then such confessions are taken into consideration by the court. The case State of Bihar vs Deepak Kumar[9] states that confession made by the co-accused cannot be considered as a substantive piece of evidence.
Conclusion
In short, confession is an admission by the accused charged with an offense in the criminal proceeding. Generally, judicial confession is more effective than any other confessions because it was directly made before the Magistrate and it was also considered as prominent evidence. As criminal proceedings mostly revolve around the evidence, confession by the accused itself makes such proceedings easier.
References:
[1] https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/habemus-optimum-testem-confitentem-reum/
[2] Preetam vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1996 SCALE (5)664
[3] Bhagwan Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC
[4] State of Maharastra vs Damu Gopinath Shinde, AIR 2000 SC 1691
[5] Kishore Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh,1990 AIR 2140
[6] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/76
[7] Nabi Mohd. Chand Hussain vs State of Maharastra,1980 Cr.L.J.860
[8] Harron Haji Abdulla vs State of Maharastra,1986 AIR 832
[9] State of Bihar vs Deepak Kumar, Cwjc/413/2016
0 Comments