CONFESSION: Indian Evidence Act DISHA GUPTA Legal Article Wed, Sep 18, 2019, at ,11:31 AM Confession under criminal law is a statement in which a person acknowledges that he is guilty of committing one or more crimes. Section 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act consists of confession. The term confession has been variously defined in the context of contemporary criminal justice. The confession is something which is made by the person who is charged with any criminal offenses and such statements conferred by him shall be suggesting a conclusion as to any fact in issue or as to relevant facts. The statements may infer any reasoning for concluding or suggesting that he is guilty of a crime. We may also define the confession in other words that the admission by the accused in the criminal proceedings is a confession. The term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined or expressed in the Indian Evidence Act, but the inference explained under the definition of admission in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act also applies to confession in the same manner. Section 17 expressly provides that any statement whether oral or in the form documentary which puts forward for the consideration of any conclusion to the fact in issue or to the relevant facts. Confessions have been used as evidence against criminal defendants since ancient times. The admissibility of the confessions of accused persons, however, has always raised concerns of fairness and accuracy. TYPES OF CONFESSION Judicial or Formal Confession- Formal confession is also known as Judicial Confession and those statements which are made before an office of magistrate or in the court of law during any criminal proceedings are known as formal or judicial confession. Judicial Confession is relevant and is used as evidence against the maker, provided it is recorded in accordance with provisions of Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The magistrate who records a confession under Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, must, therefore, warn the accused who is about to confess that he may or may not be taken as approval. After warning the accused he must give time to think over the matter and then only record the confession. Extra-Judicial or Informal Confession- An extra-judicial confession has been defined to mean “a free and voluntary confession of guilt by a person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other than judge or magistrate seized of the charge against himself.” Extrajudicial confession is also known as informal confession. A man after the commission of a crime may write a letter to his relation or friend expressing his sorrow over the matter. This may amount to a confession. Extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility. Extra-judicial confession is generally made before a private person who includes even judicial officers in his private capacity. It also includes a magistrate not empowered to record confessions under section 164 of the Cr.PC. or a magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when Section 164 does not apply. A person expressing the guilt of the offense he committed to any private person like any friend or his related persons than such commission of a crime will cover the aspects of extrajudicial confession. Retracted Confession- The Accused person who confessed earlier and later denied such confession does not destroy the evidentiary value of the confession as originally recorded. The Supreme Court has stated that a Retracted confession may form the basis of a conviction if it receives some general corroboration from other independent evidence. But if the court finds that the confession originally recorded was voluntary, it should be acted upon. CASE LAWS State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 258- The Supreme Court in this case held that an extra-judicial confession’s value only increases when it is clearly consistent and convincing to the conclusion of the case otherwise the accused cannot be held liable for the conviction solely on the basis of the confession made by him. Balwinder Singh v. State, AIR 1996 SC 607- The Supreme Court has mentioned some guidelines in the form of deciding the case that in the case of extrajudicial confession it the court must check for the credibility of the person making the confession and all of his statements shall be tested by the court to conclude whether the person who made the confession is trustworthy or not, otherwise a person who is not so trustworthy then his statements cannot be used for making any inference to prove the guilt of the accused. Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2012 SC 2435- the Supreme Court while deciding the case has made few principles in the form of guidelines where the court has to check such principles before admitting the confession of the accused, The following principles mentioned by the Supreme Court are: Extrajudicial confessions are generally a very weak kind of evidence by itself and the court must examine such statements efficiently. Extrajudicial confession should be made by the person’s own will and such statements must be true. The evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession instantly increases when it is supported by other such evidence. The statements of the confessor must prove his guilt like any other fact in issue is proven in the judicial proceedings.