Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

LAW OF EVIDENCE

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CONFESSIONS UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,

1872 AND OTHER LEGISLATIONS
(Project towards the fulfilment of Internal Continuous Evaluation for Law of Evidence)

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

MR. SHUBHAM SRIVASTAVA BHANU SUHALKA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR ROLL NO. – 1228
LAW OF EVIDENCE SEMESTER – V ‘A’

End Term Examination – Project Submission

 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3

PART II: CONFESSIONS UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 .................................... 3

CHAPTER 1: TYPES OF CONFESSIONS AND PROCESS OF RECORDING CONFESSIONS................. 3

CHAPTER 2: RELEVANCY OF CONFESSION ............................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 3: EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSIONS ............................................................... 7

CHAPTER 4: EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF RETRACTED CONFESSIONS ........................................... 9

PART III: CONFESSIONS UNDER THE SPECIAL LAWS .................................................... 9

CHAPTER 5: THE AMBIGUOUS PROVISION OF NDPS ACT, 1985 ............................................. 9

PART IV: USE OF DDT’S TO EXTRACT CONFESSIONS ................................................. 11

A. IT’S EVIDENTIARY VALUE: ................................................................................. 12

B. IT’S ADMISSIBILITY: ............................................................................................ 12

PART V: CREATION OF PREJUDICE AND DRAWING OF ADVERSE INFLUENCE .... 13

PART VI. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS ................................................................. 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 15

BOOKS: ................................................................................................................................. 15

JOURNALS: ............................................................................................................................ 15

INTERNET DOCUMENTS: ........................................................................................................ 15

2|Page
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CONFESSIONS UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT,

1872 AND OTHER LEGISLATIONS

PART I: INTRODUCTION

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is a significant consolidation of laws of confession. It

efficiently lays down the relevance, admissibility and importance of confessions as evidence.
Confession, in layman terms, is the acknowledgment of one’s own guilt. Confession has been
a much debated and controversial issue among judges and jurists as the perception of
“voluntariness” gets attached to confession. The chequered history of this issue has
undoubtedly contributed to the scepticism regarding its admissibility and relevance. The
subjective nature of the issue calls for an exhaustive analysis of the provisions Section 24 to
Section 30 of the Evidence Act, which cater to the issue of confessions, in a critical fashion.
Section 25 & 26 have been the most talked about and provocative issues when it comes to
admissibility and evidentiary value of confession. The infamous police procedure which
tethers with itself serious concerns like custodial torture and involuntary confession of the
accused has led to a greater number of opinions and analysis. In addition to this, confessions
extracted through scientific tools like polygraph test, narco-analysis test is also becoming a
contemporary issue with Supreme Court time and again emphasising use of these tool for
efficient working of evidence law with simultaneous doubts about its evidentiary value and
admissibility.
On these lines of research and analysis, this paper aims to analyse three prominent issues
of confession before police with reference to some special laws, advanced confessions
through scientific tools. The paper ensues with the basic understanding of confession law
in India and further critically analyses the above-mentioned issues. Finally, the authors
bring about a definite conclusion along with some suggestions prospective amendments with
reference to objectives of research.

PART II: CONFESSIONS UNDER INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872

CHAPTER 1: TYPES OF CONFESSIONS AND PROCESS OF RECORDING CONFESSIONS

A confession can take many forms depending on the circumstances. When a confession is
made in a court of law, it is referred to as judicial confession; when a confession is made in a
venue other than a court, it is referred to as sworn confession. Because the various confessional

3|Page
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

collections do not have the same evidentiary values as the others, their values are reduced and
upgraded based on how, where, and where they are made. The exceptional feature of
confession is that a conversation with oneself leads to a confession, as demonstrated in the
case of Sahoo v. the State of U.P.,1 where the accused murdered his son's newly married wife
because he usually has serious arguments with her, and when the accused murdered daughter-
in-law, it was seen and heard by many people living there that he was uttering words while
stating that "I finished her and now I am free from any daily quarrel.” The court held in this
case that the accused's declaration or self-conversation should be considered a confession to
prove his guilt, and that such confession should be recognised as important in proof in
administering justice, and that the fact that the statements were not conveyed to anyone else
does not negate the relevance of a confession. As a result, a confession made to oneself is good
evidence that can be used in a court of law.

1. FORMAL CONFESSION- Formal confession, also known as Judicial Confession, refers

to claims made before a judge or in a court of law during the course of a criminal action.
A judicial confession is nothing more than a "plea of guilty," as defined in Article 20(3) of
the Indian Constitution; otherwise, any confession made against the person making the
confession has no evidential value, and he cannot be found guilty of any crime based on
such confession. While they both belong to the same branch, judicial confessions and
informal confessions have different principles and relevance in determining the guilt of the
accused. There may be various justifications for gaining a conviction based on an
extrajudicial confession, but there is no reason to rule out the possibility of securing a
conviction purely based on a judicial confession. As a result, while a confession made by
the accused that leads him to the bar is admissible evidence to prove his guilt, all such
confessions must be made in front of a magistrate or in a court of law. On the other hand,
according to Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, the court must take all possible means
to ensure that any confession made by the accused that may prove his guilt is voluntary
and valid, so that no innocent person may be held responsible for the illegal acts of others.2

2. INFORMAL CONFESSION- Extrajudicial confessions are assertions made outside of a

court of law or in the absence of a judge. The statements should not have been addressed

1
Sahoo v. the State of U.P (1966) SCR (3) 86.
2
Indian Evidence Act 1872 [“IEA”].

4|Page
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

to a specific person. Informal confession can be made in the form of prayer, in any private
area, or in a self- conversation, just as judicial confession might. The court must ensure
that the accused's confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, is in accordance with
Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which provides that "no one should be pressured
to give testimony against themselves." This means that a confession must be freely and
truthfully made before a person can be charged with a crime. Extrajudicial confession takes
place when a person admits his guilt of committing a crime to a private individual, such as
a friend or family member. While both judicial and extrajudicial confessions are allowed
in court, their evidential or probative value in demonstrating some truth is different. That
is, a conviction will not be based simply on the confession; rather, the court will evaluate
the extrajudicial confession in order to condemn a person of whatever crime he has done.
The Supreme Court decided in State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh3 that the legitimacy of
an extrajudicial confession grows only if it is clearly compatible and compelling with the
case's outcome; otherwise, the accused cannot be held liable for his crime merely on the
basis of his confession. The Supreme Court stated in Balwinder Singh v. State4 that in the
case of an extrajudicial confession, the court must assess the integrity of the person making
the confession, and all of his claims must be examined by the court in order to determine
if the person making the confession is trustworthy or not; otherwise, if the person making
the confession is not trustworthy, his statements cannot be used to prove the guilt of the
accused. While Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu5 the Supreme Court, in deciding the
case, established a few principles in the form of rules, which the court must follow before
admitting the accused's confession. The Supreme Court mentioned the following
principles:

• Extrajudicial confessions are often a weak source of evidence on their own, and the
court must properly investigate such statements.
• Extrajudicial admissions must be made of one's own free will and be truthful.
• When extrajudicial confessions are supported by other evidence, their evidentiary
value skyrockets.
• The confessor's statements must show his guarantee.

3
State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh, (1992) SCR (3) 180.
4
Balwinder Singh v. State, (1996) AIR 607, 1995 SCC Sulp. (4) 259.
5
Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2008, SC 1405.

5|Page
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

3. RETRACTED CONFESSION- In English, retraction is defined as "the action of drawing

back something." A retraction confession is a type of confession in which the confessor
makes a voluntary confession, which is afterwards reversed or retracted by the same
confessor. A retracted confession may be utilised against the individual who is confessing
any retracted claims if it is supported by other independent and corroborating evidence.
The Supreme Court held in Pyare Lal v. the State of Rajasthan6 that a withdrawn
confession has sufficient validity to offer all other legal basis for conviction only if the
Court is satisfied that it was valid and made of someone's own decision. The Court must,
testify that convictions cannot be relied only on confessions unless they are substantiated.

4. JUDICIAL CONFESSION- Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act makes judicial

confessions admissible, stating that if a confession is made in the presence of a magistrate
or in a court and is registered by the magistrate as required by law, the confession is
presumed to be valid and genuine, and the accused may be tried for the crime. Because
section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows magistrates to record confessions, it is
unimportant to know who reported the confession unless he is banned from doing so. As a
result, in order to pursue the accused for the offence he did, the accused's identification
must be obvious and established in the confession.7

5. EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION- Though extra-judicial confessions have less

evidentiary value than judicial confessions, in the instance of a written confession, the
accused's writing is one of the greatest pieces of evidence the court possesses to convict
the accused. If the accused's confession is not accessible in written form, the court might
consider the accused's oral confession to another person. At the court's judgement and
satisfaction, the accused's words to any other person may be admitted, and the accused
may then be tried for the offence for which he is convicted.

6. CONFESSION BY CO-ACCUSED- In the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana8, the

Supreme Court declared that the co-confessions of the accused have no evidentiary value

6
Pyare Lal v. the State of Rajasthan, (1963) SCR 689.
7
Indian Evidence Act, 1872- confession, admin law, November 1, 2021.
8
Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011).

6|Page
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

and cannot be treated as a substantial piece of evidence. As a result, the accused's co-
confession can only be used to support the inference formed based on other facts.

CHAPTER 2: RELEVANCY OF CONFESSION

Sections 24,9 25, and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 deal with the situation of when
confession can be irrelevant. Section 24 of the same Act explains various situations in which
a confession based on such circumstances becomes irrelevant. Section 24 of the Indian
Evidence Act states that a confession made by a person accused of some offence is irrelevant
if such confession is the result of any inducement, threat, or promise and such instances have
come from a person in authority such as police, magistrate, court, etc. The other condition of
this section is that the inducement, threat, or promise must be in reference to the charge of any
offence and all such inducements, threat, or promise must give the benefit of the doubt. For
better comprehension, we can break the entire structure into four distinct essentials, which are
as follows:

• The confession must be made in response to an incentive, threat or promise,

inducement, etc.
• A person in power should make such a confession.
• It should be relevant to the charge at hand.
• It should have either a temporal advantage or a temporal disadvantage.
As a result, when these requirements are met, the confession becomes irrelevant.

CHAPTER 3: EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF CONFESSIONS

Despite the fact that it is assumed that a person will not make a false statement that might be
used against him as evidence, confession is seen as a weak kind of evidence. Its probative
value is low since there is a potential that it is false due to the accused's state of mind, or that
it was persuaded by force or threatened, etc. As a result, they must be weighed with other
evidence on the record. As a matter of prudence, a court should refrain from convicting
someone merely on the basis of a confession. They must be considered in the context of the
case's facts and circumstances. In Muthuswamy v. State of Madras,10 Bose J. remarked that
confession is a weak sort of evidence. It cannot be accepted just because it was produced by

9
Indian Evidence Act 1872, § 25, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872.
10
Muthuswamy v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 47.

7|Page
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

the accused and contains a great deal of information. The Supreme Court also ruled that a court
should not convict someone for murder merely on the basis of a confession. The Court must
be satisfied that a confession is both voluntary and true before acting on it. Voluntary actions
are contingent on whether a threat, enticement, or promise was made. Its truth must be assessed
in the context of the prosecution's complete case, namely if it fits into the established facts and
does not contradict them.11 It becomes the most important piece of evidence against the maker
if these two prerequisites are met. Confessions that are not repudiated even over the course of
the trial and are even acknowledged by the accused in a statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.12
can be completely trusted. As a result, the conviction is upheld when combined with other
circumstantial evidence. If the accused never suggests that his statement under section 164
Cr.P.C.13 was false in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C.14 or during cross-examination,
or alleges the presence of police officers at the time of recording the confession which was
devoid of any material, then the requirement of section 164(2) Cr.P.C.15 has been met. Such a
confession is deserving of acceptance.
The confession was recorded after the preliminary inquiry against the accused had begun in
the case of State v. Ram Autar Chaudhary,16 and it was in this context that the Bench held:
"We are therefore of the opinion that a Magistrate could not have recorded the confession of
the accused purporting to exercise the powers conferred on him under Section 164 Cr. P. C.,
and that a confession so recorded by him could not be taken in evidence." The confession was
also recorded during the preliminary investigation in Bachchan Lal v. State,17 and in fact after
the Committing Magistrate had recorded the statements of some witnesses. Similar
observations were made as in the previous case of State v. Ram Autar Chaudhary.18
The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held in Raja Ram v. State19 that a confession
recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after the police
had completed their investigation and submitted a charge-sheet but before the Magisterial
enquiry had begun is inadmissible in evidence. Singhara Singh & Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh20 The case focused on the admissibility of the magistrate's oral testimony, which

11
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Ajmal Mohd. Amir Kasab, [Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2010].
12
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, § 313, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India). [“CrPc”].
13
CrPc, § 164.
14
CrPc, § 313.
15
CrPc, § 164(2).
16
State v. Ram Autar Chaudhary, AIR 1955 All 138.
17
Bachchan Lal v. State, AIR 1957 All 184.
18
Supra at 8.
19
Raja Ram v. State, (1966), CrLJ 386.
20
Singhara Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1964 SC 358.

8|Page
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

included a recording of the respondents' confessions, who were charged with murder. The
confession could not be recorded since the magistrate lacked the authority to do so. The Trial
Court refused to accept the confession documents. It was decided that the confession was not
recorded as required by Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and that the
record could not be used to show confession as required by Sections 74 and 80 of the Evidence
Act. As a result, the magistrate's oral testimony was inadmissible.

CHAPTER 4: EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF RETRACTED CONFESSIONS

When a confession is retracted, the Court must consider both the grounds for the confession's
making and its retraction, and weigh the two to determine if the retraction affects the
confession's voluntary nature. If the Court believes it was retracted because it was a galvanise
advice, the retraction may not be considered by the Court if the overall facts proved in the
case, the tenor of the confession as made, and the circumstances of its making and withdrawal
warrant its use. Nonetheless, the Court would not act on the retracted confession unless it
received assurance from other sources that the prisoner was guilty. In other words, although a
voluntary truthful confession can be acted upon with only a handful of evidence, a retracted
confession necessitates a broad assurance that the retracted confession was an afterthought and
that the prior declaration was true. The fact that the confession was not withdrawn at the first
chance, but only when the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.,21 would be a
circumstance to indicate that the confession was voluntarily made.
Simply because a confession has been retracted does not make it involuntary, and so, in the
absence of evidence of force, the use of retracted confessions would not be barred by Article
20(3)22 of the Constitution. Evidence that has been retracted is a weak piece of evidence. As a
result, a conviction cannot be relied simply on such confessions unless they are voluntary,
honest, and backed up by independent and convincing evidence.

PART III: CONFESSIONS UNDER THE SPECIAL LAWS

CHAPTER 5: THE AMBIGUOUS PROVISION OF NDPS ACT, 1985

As already established, Section 53 qualifies certain officers of narcotics on the same rank of
officer in charge of a police station and Section 67 makes the confessions made in front of
these officers admissible. However, the ambiguity in this situation has led to certain debates

21
Supra at 5.
22
INDIA CONST. art. 20(3).

9|Page
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

among the jurists and the Honourable judges. There has been the issue of whether the officers
as mentioned under Section 53 qualify as “police officer”. In Ram Singh v. Central Bureau
of Narcotics, the Court provided that officer as mentioned U/S 53 will not come under the
ambit of a “police officer” within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 23 A
similar finding was made in Kanahiya Lal v. UOI where the Court held that officers of
Customs Department couldn’t be deemed as police officers and not hit by Section 25.24 The
cases of Raj Kumar Karwal v. UOI25 and Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore26 made a
similar observation in this regard. However, there have contradicting views in certain other
judgements. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab,27 the Court held that officers who are invested
with the powers of a police officer would be deemed to be a police officers and will be
accordingly governed by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. A similar observation was also made
in Nirmal Singh Pehlwan v. Inspector, Customs.28 In a very recent judgement of Tofan Singh
v State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that “officers of the Central & State agencies appointed
under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are police officers and therefore the
'confessional' statements recorded by them under Section 67 are not admissible.”29 The
judgement employs various important and convincing arguments articulating that the arbitrary
power given under Section 67 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The offences under
NDPS Act are cognizable offences as opposed to Customs or Revenue cases and the all the
powers invested in the NCB officers were a complete replica of the powers of the police but
is still hit by the exception from the general rule of exclusion.
The case has a significant impact at this time due to the prevalent case of Rhea Chakrobarty
and other celebrities being consistently interrogated with reference to this case. The judgement
has been very efficiently articulated with the three judge bench covering every argument put
forth and coming to a rational decision. The Act was providing an escape to all the officers
and a way of exploiting innocent individuals through the formulation of fake cases and
unnecessary interrogation and exploitation. It becomes important to segregate and categorise
the intensity of the offences and evaluate the evidentiary value and admissibility of confessions
in every case. This was being neglected in the present Act where two officers of similar ranking
and powers had to follow a different protocol which led to not only exploitation but also

23
Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2011) 11 SCC 347.
24
Kanahiya Lal v. UOI (2008) 4 SCC 668.
25
Raj Kumar Karwal v. UOI (1990) 2 SCC 409.
26
Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore (1966) 3 SCR 698.
27
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417.
28
Nirmal Singh Pehlwan v. Inspector, Customs (2011) 12 SCC 298.
29
Tofan Singh v State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31.

10 | P a g e
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

ambiguity for the public. However, a few judgements with a reasonable outcome cannot make
a significant impact unless the Act is amended with the requisite changes. In the entirety of the
issue, it can be concluded that while formulating a law and during an interrogation, the
brutality of the police and the basic human rights of an individual should be kept in mind for
an efficient and fair trial.

PART IV: USE OF DDT’S TO EXTRACT CONFESSIONS

These examinations are classified as Deception Detection Tests (DDT), and they are frequently
used to reveal any hidden information that the accused may have about the crime. Their
application and utilization come into play in circumstances where the concealed information
is only known to oneself and is critical to the successful completion of the criminal inquiry.
DDT testing includes the following30:

1. Narco-analysis test: This test involves injecting a substance into the human body, such as
sodium pentothal, to induce various levels of anaesthesia or hypnosis. It increases the
likelihood that the subject will provide the essential information.
2. Polygraph exam: The test is conducted by someone who is well-versed in interpreting
polygraph results in order to determine whether the accused is likely lying or concealing
crucial details about the crime. It monitors one's heart rate, respiration rate, blood pressure,
and other vital signs to determine whether or not they are hyperarousal.
3. The P300 Waves test, also known as the Brain Mapping or Brain Electrical Activation
Profile (BEAP) test, is a method of measuring brain activity that can be activated by
projecting it to a specific stimulus.

In addition, courts have stated that narco-analysis tests are a phase in the inquiry process31. In
the case of Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI,32 the Supreme Court underlined the use of these tests if the
accused refuses to participate during the investigative process so that the truth might be
discovered. These tests have resulted in an Advanced Confession, in which the results of such
interrogation are utilised to corroborate, confirm, and validate the content of the confession.

30
Suresh Bada Math, Supreme Court judgment on polygraph, narco-analysis & brain-mapping: A boon or a
bane, 134(1) Indian J Med Res, 4 (2011), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171915.
31
Sh. Shailender Sharma v. State and Another, WP (Crl.) 532 OF 2008.
32
Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI, (2007) 8 SCC 770.

11 | P a g e
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

However, in some cases, confessions collected during the course of these tests are not only
granted evidential value, but are also utilised as a weapon by the investigating agency to focus
their inquiry on the accused merely because of his remarks made during these tests.

A. IT’S EVIDENTIARY VALUE:

The whole point of introducing these tests was to address the reality that traditional methods
of questioning and interrogation by law enforcement authorities were not producing the
desired or required results.33 As a result of the increased popularity of these tests, these
agencies were given unrestricted and independent authority to apply them on persons accused
of crimes.
In the case of Selvi and Ors. v. State of Karnataka,34 the court found that if a confession or
evidence collected through a scientific procedure leads to the discovery of a new fact, the
evidence is valid under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, if the accused makes
a statement including information that is exclusively known to him, it is deemed a testimony,
and if the statement is taken without the subject's agreement. It would be a form of testimonial
extortion. The results of the tests, as well as any confessions acquired as a result of the testing,
cannot be used against the accused.35

B. IT’S ADMISSIBILITY:

The non-admissibility of confessions or testimonies collected during the course of the test is
one of the protections established by the courts upon the usage of these tests. That does not,
however, imply that the outcomes are irrelevant or redundant. In terms of obtaining acceptable
evidence, they serve their goal. They are frequently used in conjunction with other types of
evidence and as a means of supporting them rather than as a stand-alone piece of evidence. In
the case of a narco-analysis test, for example, any confessions made by the accused do not
have legal value and are inadmissible because they were made by someone in a semi-conscious
state of mind. However, the court may approve its restricted admissibility in specific instances,
depending on certain considerations that are within the court's discretion.36

33
Rojo George v. Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others, 2006 (2) KLT 19.
34
Selvi and Ors. v.State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263.
35
Radha Kishan v. State of Punjab, PLR (1978) 80 454.
36
Ramachandra Reddy and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 All MR (Cri) 1704.

12 | P a g e
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

PART V: CREATION OF PREJUDICE AND DRAWING OF ADVERSE INFLUENCE

Although an incriminating result from these tests may not be admissible in court, the focus
remains on the fact that the investigative agencies conduct these tests and conduct their
subsequent investigation into the case37 based on the results, statements, and confessions made
by the accused. Even if the accused is coerced into a narco-analysis test that results in an
incriminatory result, rendering the test as a violation of Article 20(3), it creates an impression
and prejudice about the accused's guilt in the eyes of the investigating agency, paving the way
for an investigation against the accused that would have taken place differently under normal
circumstances. Frequently, these agencies utilise scientific methodologies and their application
as an excuse to cover up an inept or bungled inquiry. These exams are a cop-out for authorities
who fail to conduct a thorough and just inquiry. It is uncommon for an accused to voluntarily
agree to undergo these tests, so the agencies resort to coercion and, in some cases, the use of
force on such an accused in the hopes of obtaining an incriminating confession that will allow
them to focus their investigation on this accused under Section 27 of the IEA. 38 Such
incriminating admissions may not be admissible, the investigation and evidence gathered
thereafter become totally valid and admissible, making the testimony indirectly permissible.
It should be up to the accused to determine whether or not to submit to these tests, rather than
leaving it up to the discretion of the police. In the case of Sr. Sephy v. Union of India,39 the
court recognised how these tests and their results generate a prejudicial presumption, holding
that presenting such inadmissible evidence before the court produces a prejudice in the mind
of the judge. Because it is a well-established legal concept that everyone is presumed innocent
until proven guilty, it can be claimed that someone accused cannot be forced to undergo these
tests in order to prove his innocence simply because failing to do so may result in the
establishment of an adverse inference.40

PART VI. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Researchers concluded that proper standards must be in design to guarantee that confessions
are only included as evidence if they are accurate and reliable, and that they aren’t gained
through the torture of the accused. Such procedures are required to protect the accused's right
to get credible statements. Furthermore, the researcher believes that there’s a conundrum about

37
Jaga ArjanDangar v. the State Of Gujarat, (2018) Crl. 6403.
38
Indian Evidence Act 1872, § 27, No. 1, Acts of Parliament, 1872.
39
Sr. Sephy v. Union of India, 2009 (1) KLT 126.
40
Rishiraj Mukherjee v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2016 SCC Online Chh 380.

13 | P a g e
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

the assumption of the evidential value of extrajudicial confessions, which has resulted in a
multitude of varying court decisions, and that a fixed rule on the matter is considered
necessary. As a result, the researcher favours that jurisprudence mandates the exclusion of
confessions gained by oppression, as discussed above. The rationale for favouring this
regulation corresponds with the respect of accused's rights to ensure that no police brutality or
torture is utilised to get a confession by using harsh and unfair measures, which frequently
goes unreported under the guise of exercising authority.

14 | P a g e
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

1. DR. RAO D, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, LEXIS NEXIS (3rd ed. 2019).
2. DR. V. KRISHNAMACHARI, LAW OF EVIDENCE, NARENDRA GODIA AND
COMPANY, HYDERABAD, (7th ed. 2014).
3. R. V. KELKAR, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, EASTERN BOOK COMPANY, (5th ed.
2014).
4. RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, LEXIS
NEXIS, (22nd ed. 2017).

JOURNALS:

1. Analysis Of Various Aspect of Law Relating To Confessions, INTERNATIONAL

JOURNAL OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS AND ALLIED ISSUES, 2017.
2. Appreciation of Evidence in Criminal Cases, Title NO.37(AS PER WORKSHOP LIST
3. Arya & Shivshankar, Study on Confession under Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
4. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PURE AND APPLIED MATHEMATICS ISSN:
1314-3395, Volume 120, No. 5, 2018.
5. John Getreu, Evidence: Admissibility of Confession, WILLIAM & MARY REVIEW
OF VIRGINIA LAW, Volume 1 Issue 2.
6. P Perera, Admissibility of Confessions in Criminal Proceedings, NATIONAL
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFERENCE SERVICE, 1977.
7. Richard May, Admissibility of Confessions: Recent Development, JOURNAL OF
CRIMINAL LAW: SAGE JOURNALS, 1991.

INTERNET DOCUMENTS:

1. Diva Rai, Confessions Under The Indian Evidence Act, Ipleaders Blog, (November 17,
2021) Act/Judicial_confession.
2. Dr M. Sarda, Extra Judicial Confession – Relevancy and Admissibility: A Study,
(November 17), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2758057.
3. Extra-Judicial Confession, SCC ONLINE BLOG, (November 17,202),
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/extra-judicial-confession/

15 | P a g e
 Semester V – National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

4. Shaheen Banoo, Analysing Section 164 of CrPC vis-a-vis Smt Seema Devi vs. State
of U.P. 2016, (November 17, 2021), https://www.juscholars.com/post/analysing-
section-164-of-crpc-vis-a-vis-smt-seema-devi-vs-state-of-u-p-2016.

LEGISLATIONS:
1. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The Evidence Act, 1872.
3. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. The Indian Constitution.
5. Narcotics Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
6. Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.
7. Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1995.

16 | P a g e