RELEVANCY AND PROBATIVE VALUE OF CONFESSION

 RELEVANCY AND PROBATIVE VALUE OF CONFESSION

Meaning of Confession & Provisions relating to Confession. INTRODUCTION: The term confession has not been defined in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. ([Sahoo Vs State of Uttar Pradesh],). Confession means admission of guilt. In most of the criminal cases the prosecuting agency is coming forward with confession statement of an accused. Hence, the study on confession is very much important in criminal field.

II. MEANING OF “CONFESSION”: Since, the law has not defined the term confession, it is necessary to get the meaning from the lexicons. As per the Black’s Law Dictionary, the meaning for confession is “a voluntary statement made by a person charged with the commission of a crime or misdemeanor, communicated to another person, wherein he acknowledges himself to be guilty of the offences charged, and discloses the circumstances of the Act….” A Confession is an acknowledgment of guilt in express words, by the accused in a criminal case, of the truth of the main fact charged or of some essential part of it. 

1.AIR 1966 SC 40  

A confession is a statement made by an accused which must either admit in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts constituting the offence. [Pakala Narayana Swami Vs. Emperor]:). 

DISCUSSIONS: 

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS RELATING TO CONFESSION: 

1) Sections 24 to 27 and 30 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

2) Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

3) Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of Practice are the relevant provisions mostly used relating to confession of an accused. 

In order to have better idea, Sections 24 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are extracted hereunder. 

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. 

It is relevant to read Section 316 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 conjointly with Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 

Section 316 Cr.P.C. – No influence to be used to induce disclosure – except as provided in Section 306 and 307, no influence by means of any promise or threat or otherwise, shall be used to an accused person to induce him to disclose or withhold any matter within his knowledge. 

In order to attack a confession made before the Police Officer with reference to Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act, the following ingredients shall be present: 

On appreciation of evidence if the Court finds that the confession of an accused has been obtained or recorded by any of the following method 

(a) By inducement 

(b) Threat, 

(c) Promise, 

Then the so-called confession is irrelevant and the same is liable to be rejected. 

1) –[Rustomji Basta Vs. State of Maharashtra]. In the above case the application of Section 24 of Indian Evidence Act has been dealt with. 

2) – [Satbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab]. Whether a confession is hit by Sec. 24 of Indian Evidence Act is to be considered from the point of accused as to how threat, inducement or promise proceeding a person in authority would operate in his mind. 

3) - [Budhwara Bai Vs. State of M.P]. Confession appearing to have been caused by threat, inducement or promise is irrelevant. 

In order to appreciate the point that the confession of an accused is hit by Sec. 24 of Indian Evidence Act, what is required is that, whether confession of an accused has been obtained either by way of inducement, threat or promise. To apply the same, it is not necessary that there must be a strong evidence, but if it appears to the Court that the confession was not voluntary, but obtained by inducement or threat or promise then the said confession has to be treated as irrelevant to the criminal proceedings. 

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. 

1) Admissibility – If an accused makes confession statement, to Police Officer the same is inadmissible as per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act. So, the same cannot be brought on record by the prosecution to obtain conviction – [Ramsingh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics] – 

2) Inculpatory statement as FIR – Suppose, the report in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C., is given to police officer by an accused, the same would amount to confession statement. The proof of the confession is prohibited u/s. 25 of Indian Evidence Act – [Aghnu Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar] –. 

3) Exculpatory statement of an accused as FIR – When the accused after committing murder – gives complaint as if his wife committed suicide – the said information is admissible in evidence. [Purkha Ram Vs. State] –. 

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. 

The ingredient of the Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act is that the accused must be in custody of the police at the time of recording the confession. 

On bare reading of the Sections 24 to 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 one can say that we need not bother about confession before the police officer while in his custody because the same is inadmissible. It is pertinent to be pointed out here that Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is exception to Sections 24 to 26 of Indian Evidence Act. It runs as follows: 

– [Antar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan] – Section 27 Indian Evidence Act is an exception to preceding provisions particular by Sections 25 and 26 – conditions to bring home section 27 has been discussed (Para 14 and 16): 

1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind of the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. 

2) The fact must have been discovered. 

3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused’s own act. 

4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence. 

5) He must be in the custody of police officer. 

6) The discovery of the fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. 

7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved, the rest is inadmissible. 

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 amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 

In order to apply Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the following ingredients must be there 

(1) There must be some accusation against accused. 

(2) Accused must be in custody of police officer 

(3) There must be some information. 

(4) The Information may be confession or statement. 

(5) There must be recovery of fact from the statement of accused. 

(6) The recovery must be distinct One. 

– 10[Eavabhadrappa Vs. State of Karnataka] 

Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and is a proviso to Section 26. 

Whether Section.27 of Evidence Act, is Constitutionally valid? 

As per Article 20(3) of Constitution of India nobody can be compelled to be a witness. 

By quoting the said Article of Constitution of India a reasonable question would arise that whether confession/ statement of an accused leading to recovery of a fact is constitutionally valid, because a statement can be used against himself. 

No doubt, a statement or confession of an accused given before the police officer while he was in custody when leads to recovery of a fact distinctly, then it can be proved against accused. But, the accused is not compelled to give statement to police officer. A voluntary statement leading to the recovery of material fact is certainly admissible into evidence and the same is constitutionally valid. 

  A. [In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadyaya] –. When a person gives information, which leads to discovery of facts and the same facts are used against him for his conviction, such principle and Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is reasonable and not contrary to provision of Constitution of India. 

  B. [State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu –. As there is no compulsion to make a confession the provision of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is not liable to be considered as unconstitutional. 

Whether all recoveries are admissible under Section 27 of Evidence Act: 

1)[Senthil @ Senthilkumar Vs state] (Para. 20) There is no nexus between the recovery of aruval and the crime has been established. Hence, the same is rejected. 

2) [Debapriya Pal v. state of West Bengal] (Paras. 7 to 10) Mere matching of blood group on the blood stained clothes, would not lead to the conclusion, that it is the appellant, who had committed the crime. Recovery of laptop does not have any bearing. It is neither the weapon of crime nor it has any cause of connection in the commission of crime. 

3) :[Jaffar hussain Dustagir v. state ](Para 5) Essential ingredient of the Sec.27 is that the information given by the accused must lead to the discovery of the fact which is the direct outcome of such information. Only such portion of the information given as is distinctly connected with the said recovery is admissible against the accused. Thirdly, the discovery of the fact must relate to the commission of some offence. 

From the above judgments it is made clear that all the recoveries made out of confession of an accused is not admissible in evidence, but those recoveries related to the commission of the offence alone is admissible u/s. 27 of Evidence act.