CONFESSION CAUSED BY INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR PROMISE, WHEN IRRELEVANT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING:

SECTION 24

‘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.’

1. Ingredients

A confession", in an admission made at any time by any person charged with a crime stating or suggesting an
inference that he committed that crime. Section 24 describes the grounds under which a confession is irrelevant

a) If it is obtained by any (i) inducement (ii) threat, (iii) promise;

b) Such inducement etc. must have reference to the charge;

c) Such inducement, etc. must proceed from a person in authority.

d) Such inducement etc. must be sufficient to give the accused grounds for supposing that by making it he would gain
an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him (Section 24)

2. Comment

The substantive law of confession is contained in Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and the adjective (procedural)
law, in Sections 164, 281 and 463 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 It is presumed that a person will not make an
untrue statement against his own interest.

3. Principle

According to the Section 9 confession by an accused is irrelevant if it is caused by

(1) inducement;

(2) threat; or

(3) promise.

The inducement, threat or promise should have

(a) reference to the charge against the accused,

(b) proceeded from a person in authority, and

(c)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 proceeding against him.

4. What is a confession?

The "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.

Shahoo vs. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC

The Supreme Court held that before a confession can be accepted in evidence, it must be established by cogent
evidence what were the exact words used by the accused. Even if so much is established, prudence and justice
demand that such evidence cannot be made the sole ground of conviction. It may be used as a corroborative piece of
evidence.

Definition:

Stephen: It is an admission made at any time by an accused stating and suggesting the evidence committed the crime.

Stephen's definition condemned that stating crime has committed by accused is confession by suggesting of an
inference is an admission only.

Therefore, the above definition suggested by Stephen was modified by the PC which held that only a direct
acknowledgement of guilt should be regarded as a confession. A confession must either admit the offence or at least
substantially all the fact which constitute crime. [Pakla Narayan Swami vs. Emperor, AIR 1939].

⚫ Confession must either be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole and the Court is not competent to accept
only the inculpatory part while rejecting the exculpatory part as incredible. [Palvinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab, AIR
1952]

5. When a confession is relevant

A confession is relevant –

a) If it is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has beenfully removed
(Section 28);

b) If it is not made to a police officer (Section 25);

c) If it is made in the presence of a Magistrate when the accused is in the custody of a police officer (Section 26).

> Before recording a confession: "Giving warning that it will be used against the person making it is fundamental
basic principle of criminal jurisprudence."

6. To be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole

It is the well accepted rule regarding the used of confessions and admissions that there must be accepted as a whole
or rejected as a whole and that the court is not competent to accept only the inculpatory part while rejecting the
exculpatory part as inherently incredible. [Palvinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab (1952) SCR]

Nishi Kant Jha vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC

:- The Supreme Court held that where the exculpatory part of a confessional statement is not only inherently
improbable but is contradicted by the other evidence, the court can accept inculpatory part and piecing the same
with the other evidence convict the accused.

Mohan Lal vs. Ajit Singh, AIR 1978 SC

The exculpatory part can be excluded where the evidence on record disproves it.

Keshoram Bora vs. Assam, AIR 1978 SC

The exculpatory part can be rejected and inculpatory part can be accepted when exculpatory part is apparently false.
Pyare Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC

The Supreme Court has held that the mere existence of the threat, inducement or promise is. not enough, but, in the
opinion of the court, the said threat, inducement or promise shall be sufficient to cause a reasonable belief in the
mind of the accused that by confessing he would get an advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference
to the proceedings against him," while the opinion of the court is that the criteria is the reasonable belief of the
accused.

Shankaria vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1978 SC

The accused made confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. but retracted later on during cross-examination
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the confessional statement was presumed to be voluntarily.

Khageswar Khatu vs. State, 1993 Cr.L.J. (SC)

It was held that Gram rakhi (village caretaker) is not a police officer. Hence, confession before him is not inadmissible,
if it is voluntary.

7. Retracted Confession:

A retracted confession, if proved to be voluntarily made, can be acted upon along with the other evidence in case
and there is no legal requirement that a retracted confession must be supported by independent reliable evidence
corroborating. It is material particular. The use to be made of such a confession is a matter of prudence rather than
of law.

So, a confession is not to be regarded as involuntary merely because it is retracted later on.

Pyare Lal vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963:- It was held by the open court that a retracted confession may for the
legal basis of a conviction. If the court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made.

8. Confession can be of two types:

1) Judicial Confession

2) Extrajudicial confession

(1) Judicial Confession - which is recorded according to the procedure given in Cr.P.C. Section 164. It is more
powerful that extra judicial confession.

(2) Extra Judicial Confession - Confessions are made either to the police or to any other perso other than Judges and
Magistrates as such. It is a very weak kind of evidence. It can be readied by the court along with other evidence.

9. Confession is a part of admission:

In Indian Evidence Act, there is not any separate heading for confession. It is covered under the heading of admission.
So, it is a part of admission. Therefore, every confession is an admission but every admission is not confession and
admission as defined is a statement. So, statement is genus. Admission is species and confession is sub-species.