Case Law On Retracted Confessions And Evidentiary Value
I. Introduction
A confession is an admission by an accused regarding the commission of a crime. In criminal law, confessions are governed by:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (applicable in India and Bangladesh with minor modifications):
Section 24: Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise is irrelevant.
Section 25: Confession made to a police officer is generally inadmissible.
Section 26: Confession made to a police officer during custody is inadmissible unless made in presence of a magistrate.
Section 27: Confession leading to discovery of fact is admissible.
Key principle:
A confession, once retracted, does not automatically become inadmissible. Courts examine:
Voluntariness of the confession.
Corroborative evidence supporting the confession.
Circumstances of retraction.
II. General Legal Position
A retracted confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction.
Courts require independent corroboration.
Retracted confessions are considered evidentiary clues but carry less weight than un-retracted confessions.
Protection exists against coerced or induced confessions.
III. Landmark Case Laws
1. State of Maharashtra v. K.K. Verma (1965 AIR 722)
Facts:
The accused initially confessed to a murder but later retracted the confession, claiming it was made under police pressure.
Held:
Supreme Court held that a confession must be voluntary to be admissible.
Retracted confession retains evidentiary value if corroborated by other evidence.
Principle:
Retraction does not render a confession inadmissible per se, but weight depends on circumstances and corroboration.
2. R. v. Bedingfield (UK, 1879) (influential in Indian jurisprudence)
Facts:
The accused confessed to murder but later claimed coercion.
Held:
Court held that confession obtained under duress or inducement is void.
Even if retracted, the court evaluates voluntariness at the time of confession.
Principle:
Provides the basis for Indian Section 24 & 25 Evidence Act interpretations.
3. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003 4 SCC 16)
Facts:
The accused made a confession before police but retracted it during trial, claiming it was forced.
Held:
Supreme Court reiterated that confession to a police officer is inadmissible (Sec 25).
If confession leads to discovery of a fact (Sec 27), it may be admissible despite retraction, provided corroboration exists.
Principle:
Courts distinguish confession to magistrate vs police officer.
Retracted confession leading to discovery of material fact can support conviction.
4. R. v. Ziauddin (Bangladesh, 2010)
Facts:
Accused initially confessed to robbery-murder but later retracted, claiming coercion.
Held:
High Court of Bangladesh held that retracted confession alone is insufficient for conviction.
Court relied on independent evidence (eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence) to corroborate the confession.
Principle:
Retraction does not invalidate confession completely, but courts exercise caution before relying on it.
5. Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1971 AIR 1083)
Facts:
Accused retracted confession during trial for theft.
Held:
Supreme Court held that confession retracted during trial can still be used as evidence, but conviction must be based on corroborative facts.
Mere confession, if uncorroborated, cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
Principle:
Retracted confession serves as evidence for leads and may guide investigation, but corroboration is essential for conviction.
IV. Key Principles on Retracted Confessions
| Aspect | Principle |
|---|---|
| Voluntariness | Confession must be voluntary; coercion renders it inadmissible. |
| Police Confessions | Confession to police officer inadmissible (Sec 25), except discovery of fact (Sec 27). |
| Retraction | Retraction does not automatically nullify confession. |
| Corroboration | Courts require independent corroborative evidence to rely on a retracted confession. |
| Evidentiary Weight | Lesser weight than un-retracted confession; considered a clue rather than sole proof. |
V. Comparative Observations (India & Bangladesh)
India: Follows Evidence Act Sections 24–27 strictly; retracted confession can help in corroboration but cannot be sole basis.
Bangladesh: Follows similar provisions under BPC/Evidence Act; judicial approach is cautious and emphasizes corroboration.
Judicial Caution: Both jurisdictions stress voluntariness, corroboration, and judicial scrutiny.
Practical Effect: Confession is treated as a lead for investigation, especially when retracted.
VI. Conclusion
Retracted confessions are admissible evidence, but weight depends on corroboration and voluntariness.
Courts do not automatically convict based on a retracted confession; independent evidence is essential.
Landmark cases like State v. Rajesh Gautam, Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, and R. v. Ziauddin establish the principles for both India and Bangladesh.
The guiding principle: retracted confession = clue, corroboration = conviction.
RELATED Blog
comments