SECTION 24
Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise when
irrelevant in criminal proceeding.
Justice Stephen Definition of Confession
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.
Two conditions:
(1) If he states that he committed the crime he is charged with
(2) If he makes a statement by which he does not clearly admit the guilt, yet from the statement some inference may be drawn that he might have committed the crime
Pakla Narayana Swamy v. Emperor
A body of a deceased man was found in a steel trunk in a compartment at Puri. The body was identified to be of a peon the father-in-law of the accused PNS. The accused was charged with the murder.
The prosecution story was that the deceased man came to the house of the accused on the 21st March ; the accused cut him into pieces, placed the dead body in a trunk and took it to the Railway Station. The prosecution tried to prove a statement of the accused. The accused stated that the deceased came to his house on the evening of the 21st March, slept in one of the out house rooms for the night and left on the evening of the 22nd by the evening train. That on the morning of 23rd March the accused went to the station and went off by the passenger train to Chatrapur in connection with some private business. It was contended that the above statement amounted to confession.
AN STATEMENT IS NO CONFESSION IF : - “suggesting the inference that he committed”
Behara Tanti v. State
Tanti was charged with the offence of committing murder of his wife by severing her head from the body with ‘falsia’. The evidence against him was his retracted confession. The statement of the accused was as follows :
“There was an altercation between me and my wife. I did not know what I did with her
though I saw my wife stained with blood. I, therefore, ran to the police station where I
realised that I had killed my wife.”
It was argued by the learned Counsel for the State that the appellant’s statement amounted to an admission of a guilt, firstly, because the appellant said that he found the knife to have contained the stains of blood on it and secondly because of his statement that shortly after he realized that he had killed his wife.
Their Lordship said :
“We are unable to accede to this contention because his statement purports to convey what appears to have been an impression created in his mind regarding the occurrence
and cannot amount to a categorical admission that he had actually killed the deceased.”
Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab
Palvinder Kaur was convicted under Section 302, I. P. C., for having committed murder of her husband by administering potassium cynide poison. She stated “my husband was fond of hunting as well as of photography. Some material for washing photos was purchased and kept in an almirah. My husband developed abdominal trouble. He sent for medicine. I placed that medicine in the same almirah. By mistake my husband took the liquid which was meant for washing the photos. He fell down and died.” It was held that “the statement did not amount to
confession.
The lower court relied upon the latter part of her statement and she was
convicted under Section 201, I.P.C., for destroying the evidence of an offence by throwing the body into a well. But the first part of her statement that the death of her husband was accidental exonerated her of any offence and if that is taken into consideration no offence under Section 201, I.P.C. is made out. Their Lordships held that admission or confession must be taken as a whole and the judgment of the lower court was set aside.
Extra-judicial confessions
- Extra-judicial confession is generally made before private individuals which includes even judicial officer in his private capacity.
- It also includes a Magistrate not empowered to record confessions under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C. or a Magistrate so
empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when Section 164 of the Code does not apply.
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 (hereinafter mentioned as “CrPC”) deals with the powers available to a Judicial Magistrate or Metropolitan Magistrate with respect to the recording of confessions and statements.
Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana
Bhagwan Singh appellant was working as sub-Postmaster Navtej Singh delivered parcel containing a wrist watch, the watch was not received by the addressee. A complaint was filed by the addressee to postal authority and an enquiry was made. During the enquiry the appellant himself recorded a statement in his own handwriting. He admitted that he was working as sub-Postmaster at Sohana Post Office on the said date when a Sikh boy (Navtej Singh) came to the Post Office and delivered a parcel under postal
certificate. The appellant also admitted that the parcel was opened by Tej Ram (Post Office packer) and that Tej Ram took out a wrist watch from it and gave it to him. These were inculpatory statements.
Appellant however stated that he had asked Tej Ram not to open the parcel but he opened it without his consent. These were exculpatory statements.
The inculpatory part
of the statement of the appellant was corroborated by other satisfactory evidence on the record in the material particulars. Consequently the inculpatory part of the
statement was admitted and exculpatory part was rejected.
Keso Ram v. State of Assam
According to prosecution Kalinath was uprooting pulses from his land when accused Kesho Ram and some others reached there and attacked him. Kalinath fell down and afterwards died.
The accused stated “Rahim and Mohammad were ploughing in our land Kalinath came there and chased me, raising a dao to assault me as soon as he came near to me by
raising dao, I having found no means started assaulting him with holanga taken for bringing paddy. After a little he fell down.” In this case the prosecution case was also that the accused assaulted Kalinath with holanga.
The court accepted the inculpatory part of the statement of the accused to the effect that he assaulted Kalinath with holanga and rejected the other part to the effect that the accused assaulted Kalinath in his own field in exercise of right of self-defence.
Subramania Gaunda v. State of Madras,
Subramaniya Gaunda was tried for murder. At the time of the investigation he
made a confession giving full details as to the manner in which he committed the
murder. From him a bloodstained drawer and a banian worn by him were seized. On the information of the accused a bloodstained bed-sheet was recovered.
On the above finding and also in absence of any other evidence, the evidence of blood on the drawer, banian and bedsheet were held to corroborate the confession and his conviction was upheld.
At the trial, the accused denied to have made the confession voluntarily. The confession was held to be voluntary, the reason for retraction untrue.
