1

ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS

(SEC. 17 – 31)

Section 17 to 23 – Admissions
Section 24 to 30 – Confessions

The admissibility of the admissions/confessions would depend on whether they fall in the
realm of ‘facts in issue’ or ‘relevant facts’.
The scheme of the provisions of the provision pertaining to the admissions/confessions
under the Ac makes them admissible because the author of the statement acknowledges a
fact to his own statement. This is based on a simple logic that no individual would
acknowledge his/her liability/culpability unless true.
Only such admissions/confessions are admissible as can be stated to have been made
without any coercion, threat or promise.

Meaning of Admissions
1. Blacks Law Dictionary – “Admissions is a voluntary acknowledgement made by a
party of the existence of certain facts which are inconsistent with his claim in an
action.”

2. Stephen – “An admission is a statement oral or written, suggesting an inference as to

any fact in issue or relevant or deemed to be relevant to any fact, made by or on behalf
of any party to any proceedings.”

Classification of Admissions
Admissions are broadly classified into two categories:
i. Judicial Admissions – are formal admissions made by the party during the
proceedings of a case. They are fully binding on the party that makes them. They
constitute a waiver of proof.

ii. Extra Judicial Admissions – are informal admissions not appearing on the record of
the case. They are binding only partially, and not fully.

Effect of Admissions
i. An admission constitutes a substantive piece of evidence in the case and for that
reason can be relied upon for the proving the truth of the facts incorporated therein.

ii. It has the effect of shifting the onus of proving to the contrary on the party against
whom it is produced, with result that it casts as imperative duty on such party to
explain it.

iii. The Admission should be clear, certain and definite, and not ambiguous, vague or
confused.
In the case of Ellammal v. Veeraswamy, in a previous suit filed by the wife for
maintenance, the husband made a statement in his counter reply that she was his wife.
In a later similar suit, he resisted from that statement. It was held that as the previous
admission was against his own interest, it was relevant and required no proof.

Presumption of genuineness
When an admission of party is satisfactory proved, it can be reasonably presumed to be
true, unless rebutted by other evidence.

Proof of Admissions
When facts are admitted, they do not require any proof and they are presumed to be true
unless the contrary is shown.

In the case of Premeshwar v. State certain documents, which were filed, though not
proved by the prosecution, were put to the accused during the examination u/s. 313 of
Cr.P.C., the accused admitted those documents. It was held that the documents can be
held as proved on basis of the admission by the accused.
 2

Admission to be taken as whole

Admission shall be taken into consideration as a whole and not in part or rejected as
whole. Therefore a person cannot be heard to rely on the favorable parts and overthrow
the rest of oral evidence.

Admissions in pleading whether can be used in other suits

The Supreme Court in the case of Basant Singh v. Janki held that an admission by a
party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as evidence against him in other
suits, that admission cannot however be regarded as conclusive and the party can show it
as not true.

Where an admission is made by a person in a proceeding to which another was not a

party, such admission is not admissible against the other person in a subsequent suit in
which both were co-defendants.

Implied Admission
Failure to deny allegations in a plaint may be taken as an admission of the claim therein
for the purpose of that suit, but not for purposes of subsequent litigations.

However an exception is carved out for the said rule, which can be illustrated with help of
a case where the defendant remained ex parte in a suit, it was held that he cannot be
deemed to have admitted the claim.

Admission to be clear and precise

An admission must be clear and precise, not vague and ambiguous.

If the admission is capable of two interpretations, the one unfavorable to the person
making it should not be put on his admission.

Binding nature of Admission

Am admission on a question of fact is binding on the party unless it is proved to be
contrary or has been successfully withdrawn.

An admission made in ignorance of legal rights or under duress cannot bind the maker of
the admission.

For an admission to have the effect of substantive evidence it must be voluntary.

Therefore if the accused while admitting a statement to be his own did not complain to the
Court that it was not voluntarily given, the statement must be deemed to be voluntary.

Withdrawal/Retraction of Admission
Where there was an admission in a suit filed by a party, mere withdrawal of the suit by
him cannot destroy the effect of the admission made therein.

In a motor accused claim petition (MACT), the insurance company sought retraction of its
admission earlier, that the offending truck was insured with it. The admission was
supported by the documents prepared by public authorities n discharge of their public
duties. It was held that such a retraction of admission could not be permitted.

However when a person makes a gratuitous admission, he may withdraw/retract the

same unless there is nothing to prevent him form withdrawing the said admission.
 3

Section 18 and 19 indicate the persons by whom an admission can be made.

Classes of Persons who can make admissions.

Section 18 lays down the following five classes of persons who can make admissions:
i. Party to the proceeding.
ii. Agent authorized by such party.
iii. Party suing or sued in a representative character, making admission while holding
such character.
iv. Person who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the
proceedings during the continuance of such interest.
v. Person from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject
matter of the suit, during the continuance of such interest.

Admission by Silence
No acknowledgment of admission can be inferred from a silence. Admission should be in
an express term and there must be a conscious and deliberate act of making
acknowledgement by a party relating to the existence of certain facts which are in issue or
relevant to an issue in the case.

Mere inaction or silence on the part of a person (say not responding to a show cause
notice) does not amount to admission.

Parties to the proceedings

The general rule inn both civil and criminal cases is that any relevant statement made by
a party is evidence against himself.

However, a statement made by a plaintiff in the evidence can be treated by the defendant
as an admission and used against the plaintiff. The statements made by a co-plaintiff
admitting the case of the defendant squarely bind the other plaintiff.

Admission by Defendant
The statement made by one of the defendant who was not authorized by the other non –
contesting defendants to make such a statement and which was not made during the
continuance of his interest in the suit property as he had parted with his interest in the
property prior to such statement, cannot be treated as an admission.

Admission by Accused
The statements made by the accused are admissible u/s. 18.

In criminal cases statements made out of the Court by an accused are similarly
admissible against him though they are subject to special conditions of admissibility and
are usually called confessions.

Admission by Co-owner
Admission by one of the co-owners of a joint property, regarding the right of the other co-
owner can be relied upon.

Admission by Co-Plaintiffs and Co-Defendants

When several persons are jointly interested in the subject matter of the suit, the general
rule is that the admission of an one of these persons are receivable against himself and
others, whether they be all jointly suing or sued, or whether an action is brought against
one or more of them separately, provided the admissions related to the subject mater in
dispute, and are made by the declarant in his character of a person jointly interested with
the party against whom the evidence is tendered.

Admission by witness
An admission made by a witness cannot be treated as an admission of the party and is
not binding in the party.

Admission by agent of the Party

 4

The admission of agent are admissible because the principal is bound by the acts of his
agent done in the course of business and within the scope of his authority.

It must be proved that the person making the admission is an agent. Where the principal
was sought to be bound by the admission made by his agent, it was held that the
relationship of agency between the principal and the agent should be pleaded and
established.

Admissions by Partners
Partners are agents of one another insofar as the business of partnership is concerned.
Where the several persons are engaged in one common business or dealing, a statement
made by one of them with reference to any transaction which forms part of their joint
business, has always been held to be admissible as evidence against the others.

Admission by Guardian
The admissions of a guardian ad litem or next friend, do not bind the minor. The guardian
of an infant has no power to bind him by admissions.

A guardian ad litem can make admissions if they are made in good faith and for the
benefit of the minor.

Admission in plaint filed earlier

An admission made by a party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used as
evidence against him in other suits. But in other suits this admission cannot be regarded
as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true.
 5

Section 19

This section forms exception to the rule that the statements made by strangers to a
proceeding are not admissible as against the parties. Ordinarily statements by strangers
to a proceeding are not relevant as against the parties. This section makes it possible to
take in the evidence of admissions of third persons who are strangers to the suit.

Therefore Section 19 and Section 20 are two exceptions to the general rule contained in
Section 18.

Object
The object of this Section is not to lay down that certain statements are relevant or
admissible, but merely to add to the category of persons by whom a statement may be
made before it can be considered to be an admission within the terms of the Indian
Evidence Act.

Admissibility
The statements referred to Section 19 become admissible provided they satisfy the
requirements of Section 17 as regards their nature.

The illustration given under this section explains how a statement of a third party
becomes relevant and admissible. The illustration exemplifies how, when the liability of a
person who is one of the parties to a suit, depends upon the liability of a stranger to the
suit, then an admission by the stranger in respect of his liability amounts to an admission
on part of that person.
 6

Section 20

Principle and Scope

This section forms another exception to the rule that admissions by strangers to a suit are
not relevant.

Under it the admissions of a third person are also receivable in evidence against, and have
frequently been held to be in fact binding upon the party who has expressly referred
another to him for information in regard to an uncertain or disputed mater.

There must be an express reference for information in order to make a statement of a

person referred to admissible.

The section makes vicarious admission in a dispute admissible.

Where the parties refer expressly to a third person for information or an opinion regarding
their dispute, the statements made by third persons, who may be called as referee are
admissible.

Principle applies to the criminal cases also

The principle underlying this section applies to the criminal cases also.

It was held that where the accused told a constable that his wife would make the list of
the properties and when subsequently she made out a list, it would be evidence against
her husband.

Binding Nature
Where there was an agreement between the parties to abide by the statement of the
referee and when the referee gave his statement to the court, it was held that it was
binding on the parties.

Reference is akin to arbitration

An admission made by a person referred to by the party comes very near to the case of
arbitration.

However the procedure to be followed in case of Arbitration proceedings, will not be

available if a reference is made to a third person for his opinion under this section. So it
would not be proper to call the statement of the referee as an award. So far as the
reference contemplated under this section is concerned the Supreme Court held that
principle is the same as that of a reference to arbitration.
 7

Section 21 – Proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf

Principle
This section lays down as a general rule that admissions are relevant and may be proved
against the persons who makes them or his representative interest.

Admissions must be clear if they are suppose to be used against the person making it.

This section states two propositions.

Firstly, an admission would be relevant and may be proved against the maker of it and his
representative in interest, as already seen, under section 17 how an admission is to be
considered as a good evidence against the maker.

Secondly, an admission can be proved on behalf of the maker but it is subject to the three
exceptions culled out u/s. 21.

Illustration
Where the tenant had admitted the execution of a sale deed in favor of the landlord by the
original land lord, the sale deed need not be proved by the landlord by submitting the
original sale deed or by adducing secondary evidence.

Admission is the best piece of evidence against the person making it. However, it is open
to him to show why the admission is not to be acted upon.

Section 21 applies to both, criminal law and civil law.

Representative Interest
The expression includes those who are privies in blood, law and estate.

Admission in prior proceedings

An admission made by the party in a prior suit/plaint signed and verified by him may be
used as evidence against him in other suits. In other suits, such admission cannot be
regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party show that it is not true.

Admission not binding on the third person

Admissions of a party can be used as evidence against the party making it and they
cannot be used against a third person.

Illustration
Where the mother gave information about her giving birth to a child and mentioned her
husband’s name and that was recorded in the birth register and when she produced the
extract of the birth register before the court in a case dealing with the legitimacy of the
child, it was held by the Madras High Court that such information is not binding on the
presumed father as there cannot be any presumption of law of paternity.

Admission and former statement of a witness

At the outset an admission is distinct from the former statement of a witness, which is
cited to contradict him.
An admission can be proved without confronting the maker with his earlier statements.
Where a witness’s statement contains certain admissions in a previous matter, it was held
that such admissions would fall within the section and it requires no proof; when such
statements are admitted by the witness, it is substantive evidence and it is not obligatory
to draw the attention to those admissions in the cross examination.

Three important principles

i. A previous admission of a party is relevant under this section and it can be used if
the maker does not choose to appear in the witness box.
ii. If the maker appears in the witness box, but makes no statement inconsistent with
the previous admission or of he does not deny the previous admission, it can be
used.
 8

iii. When the maker comes into the witness box and makes a statement inconsistent
with the previous admission it cannot be used unless his attention is drawn to that
admission in accordance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

Admission by Accused
Section 18 to 21 also apply to admissions in criminal cases.

Illustrations
a. In a case where the accused went to a police station and lodged an FIR of murder,
narrating the events preceding the commission of the offence and stating further
how the offence was committed. It was held that the narrative of the antecedent
events was admissible as admissions not amounting confessions.

b. Where the accused whilst in police custody made a statement before the doctor that
the injury on his person was caused by the murdered person, as the statement does
not amount to confession, it is not barred and can be relied upon as an admission
under section 21 of the fact that he was in the deceased’s room.

Admissions and Confessions during the course of investigation

A person gave a statement to a police after the occurrence, and it was registered as a FIR
and subsequently he became an accused in that case and was tried for the charge of
murder. It was held by the Supreme Court that the statement given by the accused was
not a confessional (statement) FIR, but it was an admission by him of certain facts which
he had bearing on the question to be determined by the Court, and was admissible to
prove against him, his admission being relevant under section 21.

The FIR, when given immediately after the occurrence by the accused, is neither a
confession nor a statement made to the police officer during the course of investigation;
and its admissibility is not barred either by section 25 of the Evidence Act or 162 of the
CrPC.

Statement made during course of examination of an accused u/s. 313

If an accused person, in his examination confesses to the commission of the offence
charged with, the court may rely upon such confession, proceed to convict the accused.
To the contrary when the accused choses to explain the circumstances appearing in the
evidence against him or sets up his version of the occurrence claiming to the effect that he
did not commit the offence. The statement of the accused during such examination can be
considered in its entirety along with other pieces of evidence on record.

Exceptions

i. Maker of Admission Dead.

Under this clause, an admission of a person may be proved by or on behalf of the
person making it when such admission is of such a nature that if the person
making it were dead would be relevant as between third parties u/s. 32.

Illustration – A wife will have special means of knowledge about her marriage and
if she says that she is the wife of one G, it is admissible under this clause if the
statement was made before the dispute in respect of her marriage arose.

The principle underlying this exception is necessitated by the unavailability of the

person making the admission.

ii. Admission made in particular Mental or Physical State.

The state of a man’s mind or body is relevant u/s. 14.
This clause shows that such facts or statements may be proved on behalf of the
person making them, notwithstanding the general rule that persons cannot make
evidence for themselves by what they choose to say.
A declaration as to the religion of a person in his will is admissible under this
exception and also under Section 14.
 9

iii. Admission relevant otherwise than Admission

This clause states that an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person
making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
Section 6, where in it is mentioned that the facts which though not in issue, are so
connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant
whether they occur at the same time and place or at a different time and place.
 10

Section 22

Principle
As a general rule, the contents of a document which are capable of being produced must
be proved by the instrument itself and not by oral evidence. Oral admissions as to the
contents of a document are excluded under this section.

This section however contemplates giving evidence of oral admissions as to the contents of
a document on two grounds.

A party who seeks to rely on such admission must show that he is entitled to give
secondary evidence of the contents of such a document according to the provision
contained in this Act, or that the genuineness of the document itself is in question.

Written Admission
This section states that the oral admissions as to the contents of a document are not
relevant.

They are however admissible when the party is entitled to give secondary evidence of the
contents of such documents under section 65 and 66.

Such admissions are also admissible when the genuineness of the document produced is
in question

Where the genuineness of a document is in question

So far as the contents of a document are concerned, secondary evidence can be given as
pointed out earlier, but when the question is whether the document is genuine on not, it
may be proved in different ways, as contemplated by different section of this Act.
 11

Section 22 A

This section has been added by the Information and technology act 2000.

It provides that oral admissions as to the contents of electronic record are relevant unless
the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question.
 12

Section 23

This section excludes admission if parties in civil cases under the following two
circumstances:
i. If the admission is made upon the express condition that evidence of it is not to be
given.
ii. Under the circumstances from which the court infers that the parties agreed that
evidence of the admission should be not be given.

The section is based on the following two objects:

i. Public Policy.
ii. As a matter of privilege or confidentiality.

Object behind the Section

The policy of law is to encourage settlement, especially in civil cases and no unfair
advantage shall be permitted to be taken of the willingness of one party to negotiate.
The section protects communication made without prejudice.
It is based on the sole object that if the parties were to be prejudiced by their efforts to
compromise it would be impossible to attempt by amicable arrangement of differences.

Without Prejudice
The expression without prejudice means without prejudice to the writer of the letter of the
terms he proposes are not accepted.
To put in a simpler sense it means that I make you an offer which you may accept or not,
as you like; but if you do not accept it, my having made it is to have no effect at all.

Scope
The opening line of the provisions of Section 23 make aptly clear that the said provision
only applies to the civil cases and not to the criminal cases.

Waiver of Privilege
The consent of both the parties is required to waive off the privilege, even if there has been
only one communication.

Application between husband and wife

The principle under this section has a greater relevancy in matters where marital
relationship is concerned.
Where a petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was pending, a letter written by one
of the parties containing an admission of cruelty and seeking an apology was filed. That
letter was written during the period of negotiations for a compromise between the parties.
It was held that the letter is a privileged document and it may be inferred that the parties
did not want to let in evidence in respect of the letter.

From which circumstances the Court can infer that the parties agreed together
that evidence of it should not be given.
Circumstances must be of such a character that the court must naturally come to the
conclusion that the parties agreed together that the evidence of it should not be given.

Illustration – In a suit for rent there was a talk for settlement between the plaintiff and the
defendant when the suit was about to be instituted. It was held that the mere fact of the
conversation taking place when the parties were contemplating that a suit might be
instituted was not in itself sufficient to prevent the conversation from being put in evidence.

Legal Counsel not prevented form giving evidence

Under the explanation the legal advisor of the party will not be prevented from giving
evidence of any communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose of any fact
showing that crime or fraud has been committed since his employment.
 13

CONFESSIONS

Section 24 – Confession

Bare provision
A confession made by an accused person in a criminal proceeding is irrelevant in a
criminal proceeding in the following conditions:
i. If the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by an
inducement, threat or promise.
ii. In reference to the charge against the accused.
iii. Proceeded form a person in authority.
iv. Sufficiently given the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that by
making the confession he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal
nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

Meaning of Confession
A confession has not been defined anywhere in the Act.
A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime, stating
or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.
A confession is a statement which either admits in terms the offence or at any rate
substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.

Classes of Confession
Confessions are divided into two types:
i. Judicial Confession - are those, which are made before a Magistrate or the Court
in the course of judicial proceedings.
ii. Extra – Judicial Confessions – are those, which are made by the party elsewhere
than before a Magistrate or the Court.

Confession can be further classified into two categories:

i. Voluntary Confession
ii. Involuntary Confession

Difference between Confession and Admission

Basis Confession Admission
 14

Scheme of law of Evidence vis-à-vis Confessions

All confessions are admissions, but all admissions are not confessions.
Section 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act deal with the law pertaining to confessions.

Section 24 lays down the rule that the confession that appears to the court to be made
under threat, inducement or promise is liable to be excluded from the evidence.
Section 25 bars proof of a confession made to a police officer.
Section 26 bars proof of a confession made by a person while he is in the custody of the
police officer, unless it is made is made before the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Section 27 forms an exception to the general rule contained in the forgoing sections and
provided that the confession leading to the discovery, would be considered as evidence to
that extent.

Principle and Scope

Confessions are received as evidence in criminal cases upon the same principle on which
admissions are received in Civil Cases, namely that a person would not make an untrue
statement against his own interest.
Moreover if the confession covers a different crime it would be relevant item of evidence in
the case in which that crime is under trial and it would then become admissible in that
case.

Admissibility of Confession
The confession made by a person is only admissible against the one who makes it. It
would be inappropriate to implicate a person in the basis of a statement made by another.
Therefore, the only exception to the above mentioned rule is that the person who has
made the confession should be a party to the proceedings because that is only the way a
confession can be used against him.

Cases where a confession is relevant

A confession would be considered relevant in the following circumstances:
i. If it is made after the impression caused by inducement, threat or promise has been
removed.
ii. If it is not made to a Police Officer.
iii. If it is made in presence of a Magistrate.
Object
The law of evidence with respect to the confessions has been enacted with the following
objects:
i. Safeguard the interest of the accused on the ground of public policy and for proper
administration of justice.
ii. It would not be safe to receive a statement made under any influence of fear.
iii. To restrain law enforcement agencies from oppressive behavior.

Three fold functions of the Court

i. Determine the sufficiency of the inducement, threat or promise.
ii. Examine the mentality of the accused to see whether such grounds would appear to
the accused, reasonable.
iii. To see whether the confession has been made in consequence of the inducement,
threat or promise.

In the case of Shankaria v. State of Rajasthan it was observed that it is well settled
that a confession, if voluntarily and truthfully made is an efficacious proof of guilt.
Therefore, when in a capital case the prosecution demands a conviction of the accused on
the basis of his confession recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., the Court must apply a
double test:
i. Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary?
ii. If so, whether it was true and trustworthy?

Person in Authority
The words “proceeding form the person in authority” u/s 24 of the Act, are broad enough
to include any person having domain over the accused.
 15

In a case, a Vice – Principal of a school was held to be a person in authority vis-à-vis a

student.

Recording of Confession
In recording of the confession, the following principles should be taken care off:
i. Sufficient time to an accused to ponder over as to whether he would make confession
or not.
ii. That it is necessary should be made in full knowledge and nature of consequence of
confession.
iii. The provision of Section 164 Cr.P.C. must be complied with.
iv. A searching inquiry should be made from the accused to ensure that no extraneous
influence was used against him.
v. The Magistrate should ask the accused as to why he wants to make the statement.
vi. The Court shall ensure due protection from apprehended torture or pressure form
the police in case he declines to make the statement.
vii. At the time when the accused is making the statement in the Court, no Police officer
shall be present in the Court.
viii. Confession of a co-accused is a weak type of evidence.

Confession of the Co-Accused

As a general rule the confession by one person cannot bind the other person, however the
same is subject to an exception, where a rule of caution has been adopted by all courts.
‘A’ should not be convicted on basis of ‘B’s confession unless the following circumstances
are supported by the confession made by ‘B’ against ‘A’:
i. Confession shall be supported with material corroboration.
ii. Reasonable basis/ground to believe the confession against the co-accused.
iii. Free and voluntary
iv. Supported by medical evidence.

Retracted Confession
A retracted confession is a statement made by an accused person before the trial begins,
by which he / she admits to have committed the offence, but which he/she repudiate at
the trial.
It should be looked upon with a greater concern unless the reasons given for having made
it in the first instance are on the face of them false.
A retracted confession is considered to be a weak type of evidence.
However a retracted confession can form basis for conviction if the same is supported by
medical and circumstantial evidence.

Extra – Judicial Confession

The statement of the accused to his mother that he had killed his daughter is an extra
judicial confession, admissible u/s. 24.
The telephone call made by the accused to the media owing the responsibility of the offence
of the bomb blast would amount to extra judicial confession.

While appreciating the extra judicial confession the Court shall take into consideration the
following factors:
i. To whom it is made.
ii. The time and place of making it.
iii. The circumstances, in which it was made.
iv. And the court is look for any suspicious circumstances.

Evidentiary Value – it is well settled that it is an imperative duty of the Court to satisfy
judicial conscience prior to placing reliance upon the extra judicial confession made by the
accused. The governing principles relating to the value of extra judicial confessions are as
follows:
i. Confession must be voluntary.
ii. It must reflect the true state of affairs.

The Supreme Court of India has stated the following principles to be kept in mind while
making extra judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence:
 16

i. The court must examine the extra judicial confession with greater care and caution.
ii. It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
iii. It should inspire confidence.
iv. It should be supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and further corroborated
by prosecution evidence.
v. It should not suffer from any material discrepancy.
vi. Such statement shall be proved like any other fact and in accordance with the law.

Confession to be taken as whole

It is well settled rule of law that the admissions or confessions shall be taken as a whole
and the Court is not competent to accept or reject it in part.

Illustration – Where an accused was charged for murder, kidnapping and extortion, and the
Court has considered it unsafe to act upon the confession for a conviction with respect to
murder, there is no reason why the confession insofar as it related to the two offences of
kidnapping and extortion should not be taken into consideration as against the accused, to
lend assurance to the conclusion as far as those offences are concerned based on
circumstantial evidence.
 17

Section 25 – Confession to Police offered not be proved.

Principle and Scope

Under section 25, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence except
insofar as is provided by Section 27.
The principle on which this section is based on is that the confession made to a Police
Officer is untrustworthy and unreliable as the same could have been obtained by threat or
coercion. As the Indian Police is often know for using third degree techniques to make the
accused person say what would help their investigation.
Therefore such a confession is avoided because of its danger of being false.

Object
That the person accused of an offence would not be induced by threat, coercion or force to
make a confessional statement.
That the officer would make every effort to collect the evidence of the commission of the
crime de hors the confessions to be extracted from the accused while they are in the
custody of the police.

Nature of Confession to the Police

Confession as such is a weak kind of evidence and its evidentiary value is further
deteriorated when it is made to a Police Officer.
However Section 25 only debars confession made to the Police Officer, but it does not bar
confession made in presence of the Police Officer. Although, in reality it might be difficult to
determine whether the confession was made in presence of the Police Officer or directly to
the Police Officer.

Section 162 vis-à-vis Section 25

Section 25 protects the accused in respect of a confession made by him to a police officer,
whereas Section 162, Cr.P.C., protects the accused if it is made during the course of
investigation.

Accused of any Offence

This expression covers a person accused of an offence at the trial, whether or not he was
accused of the accused of the offence when he made the confession.

Section 25 prohibits the use of confession against the maker and not in his favor
Where the accused stated that he killed his wife on provocation, it was held the fact
relating to provocation can be used in his favor as this section only prohibits use of
confession against an accused and does not prohibit its use in favor of an accused. It was
held by the Privy Council that a statement made to the police officer confessing the offence
is inadmissible against co accused but may be used in favor of the maker as the
prohibition u/s. 25 in only regarding the use of the statement against the accused.

Who all fall under the category of Police Officers.

The term should not be read in a strict technical sense but according to its more
comprehensive and popular meaning. It applies to every police officer and it is no restricted
to officers in regular police force.

The Supreme Court has laid down that the test for determining whether a person is a
police officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the Evidence Act would be whether the
powers of a police officer which are conferred on him on which are exercisable by him
because he is deemed to be an officer in charge of a police station, establish a direct or
substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by section 25.
The following have been classified as Police Officer for the purposes of Section 25:
i. Excise Officer
ii. A Special Officer of the Commercial Tax Department, etc.

It is interesting to note that an IPS officer working on an administrative post and not
authorized or empowered to conduct investigation are not Police Officers for the purposes
of Section 25.
 18

In the case of Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar it was held that Section 25 does not
exclude all kinds of statements by an accused to the Police Officer, but only confessions
which are admissions in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which
constitute the offence made to the Police Officer.
This section 25 does not stand in the way of statements made by the accused to the Police
Officer, which are not confessions.
 19

Section 26 – Confession by accused while in police custody not be proved against

him.

Principle and Scope

Section 25 excludes confessions to police officers under any circumstances.
Section 26 excludes confession to anyone else while the person is in a position to be
influenced by a police officer.

Section 25 applies to all confessions made to Police Officers.

Section 26 applies to confessions made to person other than the Police Officer but made
while in Police Custody.

Custody
The word custody has not been defined under the Act.
However, it implies some limitation upon the liberty of the Citizen, either directly or
indirectly caused by Police, which may include arrest, detention surveillance or any
restraint on his movement.
It does not mean custody after formal arrest.
It is sufficient if there is some form of police surveillance, or restriction by the Police ob the
movements of the person concerned.
While determining the question of custody, the crucial test is whether at the time when the
accused make the confession he is a free man or his movement are controlled by the Police
either by themselves or through some other agency employed by them, for the purpose of
securing the confession.

Safety Interviews
An interview process, which so far as possible, enables the police to protect the public, is a
necessary imperative. These interviews are variously described as ‘safety interviews’ or
‘urgent’ or ‘emergency interviews’.
The suspect is interviewed for information which may help the police to protect life and
prevent serious damage to property.
The question is whether the result of such interviews be used as evidence against the
suspect or the person who gives such interviews, because if it is used as evidence against
the suspect, he would refuse to answer the questions against his own interest.
 20

Section 27 – How much of information received from the accused may be proved.

Principle and Scope

The section is founded on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported
by the discovery of a fact, the confession may be presumed to be true, and not have been
extracted.

It comes into operation only:

i. If and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of information
received from an accused person in police custody; and
ii. If the information related distinctly relates to the fact discovered.

The various requirements of the section can be summed as follows:

i. The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue.
ii. The fact must have been discovered.
iii. The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the
accused and not by accused’s own act.
iv. The person given giving the information must be accused of any offence.
v. He must be in the custody of the police officer.
vi. The discovery of fact in consequence of information received from an accused in
custody must be deposed to.
vii. Only the portion of the information, which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact
discovered can be proven.

Discovery of a Fact
It is to be noted that the term discovery of a fact derives a wide connotation.
‘Fact’ under the Evidence Act includes physical as well as psychological fact or mental
condition.
Thus, information which lead to the discovery of a witness to whom the accused had given
the stolen article is also a discovery fact.

Doctrine of Confirmation
Section 27 is based on the doctrine of confirmation.
It states that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information
obtained from a prisoner, such discovery id a guarantee that the information supplied by
the prisoner is true.
However the information must be confessional in nature.

Signature/ thumb impression of the accused on the Disclosure Statement/ Seizure

Memo
The absence of signature or thumb impression of the accused on the disclosure statement
recorded u/s. 27 detracts martially from the authenticity and the reliability of the
statement.
However section 27 does not require that the voluntary statement must be signed by its
maker or the thumb impression must be affixed to it. Therefore the failure to take
signatures or thumb impressions on the disclosure statement would not make it illegal in
the eyes of law.
Similarly, the investigation officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in
any statement attributed to him while preparing the seizure memo for the recovery of any
article covered by Section 27. But if any signatures have been obtained by him there is
nothing wrong or illegal in it.

Independent Witnesses
Another important requirement of this section the role of independent witness. Two or more
independent witnesses must sign the seizure memo to ensure that the recovery was done
at the instance of the accused, and without any manipulation of the police officer.
However mere absence of independent witness when the investigation officer recorded the
statement of the accused and the article was recovered pursuant thereto, is not sufficient
ground to discard the evidence of the Police Officer relating to the recovery at the instance
of the accused. Similar would be the position where the attesting witness turns hostile.
 21

But where the statement of the Police Officer itself is not reliable then it may be difficult for
the court to accept the recovery as lawful and legally admissible.

Information received from a person accused of an Offence

Under this section the person who is making the statement must be a person accused of
any offence.
Therefore when a statement was made by a person who is a stranger or a prosecution
witness, it is not admissible in evidence in spite of the fact that it lead to the discovery.

The Person must be in custody of a Police Officer.

The section does not apply to information given to the police by an accused person who is
not in the custody of the police at the time it was given.
The submission of a person to the custody of a police officer, within the terms of Section
46(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is custody within the meaning of Section 27.

Recovery from the Co-accused

When the articles of theft on the information given in confessional statement of the accused
were recovered from the possession of the other co-accused person to whom he had handed
over the same for concealment, the information and recovery in pursuance thereof is
admissible in evidence under Section 27.

Place of discovery
In order that a discovery may come under the provisions of this section, the place from
where which the incriminating article was recovered must be a place of concealment, which
would be difficult or impossible for the police to discover without some assistance from the
accused.
The discovery of a pistol at the instance of the accused, from a place which was a public
thoroughfare was held to be not relevant.

Statement subsequent to Discovery

Where the fact has already been discovered any statement relating to its discovery would
not be admissible in evidence. Mere discovery, on the information given by the accused is of
no legal consequence, if it is not preceded by the informative statement on the part of the
accused.

Illustration – Where after the recovery of blood stained pyjamas and banian of the accused,
which had been concealed by the accused, the accused made a statement that they were his
cloths , it was held that the statement that those articles belonged to the accused was not
admissible in evidence.

Joint Statement/ Statement in case of a number of accused.

There are conflicting views given by the judiciary when it comes to attributing the discovery
of a fact to a group of accused persons giving joint statement.
As a rule, it is obligatory on the investigation officer to state and record who gave the
information, when he is dealing with more than one accused, what words were used by him
so that a recovery pursuant to the information received may be connected to the person
giving the information so as to provide incriminating evidence against that person.

Delay
The question of delay in giving the discovery statement and actual discovery of the fact is to
be decided by taking to consideration the facts and circumstances surrounding a particular
case.

Two Aspects of interpretation of Section 27

1. Discovery of Fact
Whether the facts contemplated by Section 27 are physical, material objects or the
mental facts of which the accused giving the information could be said to be aware
of.
 22

The discovery of fact can be any material object or physical object which is recovered
after the accused makes a disclosure statement. However in the case of State v.
Navjot Sandhu it was held that the proposition ‘discovery of fact cannot only be
equated to the object produced or found, it is more than that. The discovery of fact
arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the
knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a
particular place.

2. At the instance of the Accused

Whether pointing out a material object by the accused furnishing the information is
a necessary concomitant of Section 27.

In most of the cases the person making a disclosure statement leads the police to
the place where an object is concealed and points out the same to him, however it is
not essential that there should be such pointing out in order to make the
information admissible u/s. 27.
Of course, it is subject to the rider that the information so furnished was the
immediate and proximate cause of discovery. If the Police Officer choses not to take
the informant accused to the spot, it will have no bearing on the point of
admissibility u/s. 27, though it may be one of the aspects that goes into evaluation
of that particular piece of evidence.
 23

Section 28 – Confession made after removal of impression cased by

inducement, threat or promise, relevant.

Principle
This section basically acts as an exception to the rule contained in Section 24.

However, there is no straight jacket formula that can be applied by the court to
determine whether the threat, inducement or promise has been removed or
not.

It depends from case to case, where the Court shall consider all the relevant
facts pertaining to the said issue.

Factors
In determining whether inducement has ceased to operate, following factors
may be taken into consideration:
i. Nature of inducement.
ii. Time and circumstances under which it was made.
iii. The situation of the person making it.

Illustration – where the accused was in police custody for 12 days and
confession was given after beating and threats by the police, it was held that
though he was given time for reflection after such beating, it would not lessen the
effect of the influence which had been brought to bear on him.
 24

Section 29 – Confession otherwise relevant not to be irrelevant because of

promise of secrecy etc.

Principle
The paramount condition for applicability of Section 29 is that the confession
should otherwise not be barred by the preceding sections i.e., section 24, 25,
26 & 29.

Under this section a relevant confession does not become irrelevant merely
because it was made under:
i. Promise of secrecy.
ii. When the person was drunk.
iii. Because it was elicited in answer to a question.
iv. In consequence of a deception or artifice practiced on the accused.
v. Because no warning was given that he was not bound to say anything
and that whatever he might say would be used as evidence against him.

Statement made in sleep.

Statement overheard.

Statement made under deception.

Statement made under promise of secrecy.

Statement made when drunk.

Statement made without having been warned.

 25

Section 30
Two or more persons
Tried jointly for the same offence
Confession is made by one of them
Affecting himself and other
The Court may take into consideration such confession against such other
person as well as against the person who makes it.