Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The Indian Evidence Act does not define "confession". For a long time, the courts in India adopted the definition of "confession" given in Article 22 of Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence. According to that definition, a confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. This definition was discarded by the Judicial Committee in Pakala Narayanaswami v. King-Emperor [(1939) LR 66 IA 66, 81] . Lord Atkin observed:

These observations received the approval of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1953) SCR 94, 104] . In State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya [(1961) 1 SCR 14, 21] Shah, J. referred to a confession as a statement made by a person stating or suggesting the inference that he has committed a crime.

12. Shortly put, a confession may be defined as an admission of the offence by a person charged with the offence. A statement which contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to a confession, if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which, if true, would negative the offence alleged to be confessed. If an admission of an accused is to be used against him the whole of it should be tendered in evidence, and if part of the admission is exculpatory and part inculpatory, the prosecution is not at liberty to use in evidence the inculpatory part only. See Hanumant v. State of U.P. [(1952) SCR 1091, 1111] and Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [(1953) SCR 94, 104] . The accused is entitled to insist that the entire admission including the exculpatory part must be tendered in evidence. But this principle is of no assistance to the accused where no part of his statement is self- exculpatory, and the prosecution intends to use the whole of the statement against the accused.

28. What is meant by the word 'confession'?

29. The word 'confession' has not been defined in the Evidence Act. For a long time, Courts in India have adopted the definition of 'confession' given in Article 22 of Stephen's Digest of Law of Evidence. According to that definition, a confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. However, in the decisions reported as R v. Jagrup ILR 7 ALL 646 and R v. Santya Bandhu 4 Bom LR 633 Allahabad High Court and Bombay High Court respectively did not accept such a wider definition and gave a narrower meaning to the word 'confession' holding that only a statement which is a direct acknowledgement of guilt would amount to confession and that a statement which is merely an inculpatory admission which falls short of being admission of guilt would not amount to confession. The issue as to meaning of word 'confession' was ultimately settled by Privy Council in the decision reported as Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor 66 IA 66 where Lord Atkin observed as under:

"Moreover, a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the office (sic offence). An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact, is not of itself a confession e.g. an admission that the accused is the owner of and was in recent possession of the knife or revolver which caused death with no explanation of any other man's possession. Some confusion appears to have been caused by the definition of confession in Article 22 of Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence, which defines a confession as an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. If the surrounding articles are examined, it will be apparent that the learned author after dealing with admissions generally is applying himself to admissions in criminal cases, and for this purpose defines confessions so as to cover all such admissions, in order to have a general term for use in the three following articles: confession secured by inducement, made upon oath, made under a promise of secrecy. The definition is not contained in the Evidence Act, 1872; and in that Act it would not be consistent with the natural use of language to construe confession as a statement by an accused 'suggesting the inference that he committed' the crime."