Evidentiary Standards Admissibility Of Confessions Retracted Confessions
⚖️ 1. Concept of Confession
A confession is a statement made by an accused person admitting guilt of an offence, wholly or in part.
It is governed mainly by the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, under Sections 24 to 30.
🧾 2. Legal Framework: Sections 24–30 of the Evidence Act
| Section | Provision | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| 24 | Confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise is inadmissible. | Voluntariness is essential. |
| 25 | Confession made to a police officer is inadmissible. | Protects accused from coercion. |
| 26 | Confession made in police custody is inadmissible unless made in presence of a Magistrate. | Ensures fairness. |
| 27 | Discovery rule – that part of confession which leads to discovery of a fact is admissible. | Partial admissibility. |
| 28 | Confession made after the removal of inducement or threat is admissible. | |
| 29 | Confession not invalid merely because made under promise of secrecy or deception. | |
| 30 | Confession of a co-accused can be taken into consideration, but is not substantive evidence. |
⚖️ 3. Essentials of a Valid Confession
Voluntary – must be made without any threat, promise, or inducement.
True – must correspond to facts proved by evidence.
Recorded properly – if under Section 164 CrPC, must be recorded by a magistrate.
Corroborated – particularly if retracted later, must be supported by independent evidence.
⚖️ 4. Retracted Confession
A retracted confession is a confession which the accused later withdraws or denies, stating it was made under pressure, threat, or misconception.
Legal Position:
A retracted confession can be the basis of conviction if it is proved to be true and voluntary.
However, courts require strong corroboration in material particulars.
⚖️ 5. Landmark Case Laws (Detailed)
🧑⚖️ Case 1: Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1094)
Facts:
The accused, a public servant, was charged with misappropriation. He had confessed to taking money, but later retracted, saying the confession was obtained under pressure.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that:
A retracted confession can form the basis of conviction, but only if it is voluntary and true.
Courts must look for corroboration in material particulars.
A confession not free from suspicion cannot be relied upon.
Importance:
This case laid down the rule of prudence — retracted confessions should be corroborated by other independent evidence.
🧑⚖️ Case 2: Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 159)
Facts:
One accused (A1) confessed to committing murder along with another person (A2). The confession of A1 was sought to be used against A2.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that:
The confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence under Section 30.
It can only be used to corroborate other evidence against the co-accused.
No conviction can be based solely on a co-accused’s confession.
Importance:
Established that a confession implicating others cannot, by itself, justify conviction — it needs independent corroboration.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (AIR 1960 SC 1125)
Facts:
The accused made a confessional statement while in police custody, which led to the discovery of certain incriminating articles.
Held:
The Supreme Court ruled:
Confessions made to a police officer are inadmissible (Sec. 25).
However, Section 27 is an exception — that part of the statement which distinctly relates to discovery of a fact is admissible.
The discovery must be a direct outcome of the information given.
Importance:
Clarified the scope of Section 27 — even a confession in custody can be partly admissible if it leads to discovery of a new fact.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1952 SC 354)
Facts:
The accused woman allegedly confessed that she accidentally poisoned her husband and disposed of his body. Later, she denied making such confession.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that:
A confession must be accepted or rejected as a whole; it cannot be split up to use only inculpatory parts and ignore exculpatory ones.
The alleged confession was ambiguous and not fully proved.
The accused was acquitted.
Importance:
Established that a confession cannot be selectively used — courts must consider the statement in its entirety.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: Bharat v. State of U.P. (AIR 1971 SC 2324)
Facts:
The accused made a confession before a magistrate, but later retracted it at trial, alleging police coercion.
Held:
The Supreme Court observed:
A retracted confession may form the basis of conviction if it is voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by other evidence.
The burden lies on the prosecution to prove voluntariness.
Magistrates must ensure that the accused is making the confession freely and consciously.
Importance:
Reaffirmed that voluntariness is the cornerstone of admissibility; and a retracted confession must be corroborated.
⚖️ 6. Summary of Legal Principles
| Principle | Legal Position | Supported By |
|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness | Confession must be free from threat, inducement, or promise. | Sec. 24, Bharat v. State of U.P. |
| Confession to Police | Inadmissible. | Sec. 25, Deoman Upadhyaya |
| Confession in Custody | Inadmissible unless made before Magistrate. | Sec. 26 |
| Discovery Rule | Only that part leading to discovery is admissible. | Sec. 27, Deoman Upadhyaya |
| Retracted Confession | Admissible but must be corroborated. | Pyare Lal Bhargava, Bharat v. State of U.P. |
| Co-Accused’s Confession | Not substantive; only corroborative. | Sec. 30, Kashmira Singh |
| Whole Statement Rule | Confession must be read as a whole. | Palvinder Kaur |
✅ 7. Conclusion
Confession = Voluntary + True + Corroborated (if retracted)
The Indian Evidence Act ensures protection of accused against coercive investigation practices.
Retracted confessions are admissible but treated with caution — courts look for corroboration and voluntariness before relying on them.
Judicial trend shows a careful balance between truth-seeking and protection of rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments