Admissibility Of Confessions And Statements
📘 Admissibility of Confessions and Statements – Detailed Explanation
In criminal law, a confession refers to a statement made by an accused person admitting guilt for an offence. The admissibility of such confessions depends on whether they were made voluntarily and without coercion, threat, or inducement.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 24–30) lays down the law regarding confessions. The core principle is that a confession must be free and voluntary — if it appears to have been obtained by threat, inducement, promise, or coercion, it is inadmissible in court.
🔹 Key Legal Principles
Section 24 – A confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority is inadmissible.
Section 25 – No confession made to a police officer is admissible.
Section 26 – A confession made while in police custody is inadmissible unless made before a Magistrate.
Section 27 – Allows part of a statement leading to the discovery of a fact to be admissible (the “discovery rule”).
Section 30 – Confession of a co-accused can be considered only if tried jointly.
⚖️ Landmark Cases on Admissibility of Confessions and Statements
1. Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963 AIR 1094, SC)
Facts:
An officer of the Education Department was accused of removing a file from the Secretariat and later returning it after altering some records. During interrogation, he confessed to this act before an officer.
Issue:
Whether the confession made to a person in authority (not a police officer) but under possible influence is admissible.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that for a confession to be admissible, it must be made voluntarily and without inducement or fear. Since the statement was made freely, it was admissible. The Court emphasized that the voluntariness of a confession is the test of its admissibility.
Principle:
The absence of threat or inducement is crucial for a valid confession. The court must carefully assess surrounding circumstances.
2. State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (AIR 1960 SC 1125)
Facts:
The accused was arrested and confessed to killing a man. His confession led to the recovery of the weapon used. However, he claimed that his confession was made while in police custody.
Issue:
Can a confession made while in police custody be admissible?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that confessions made while in police custody are inadmissible under Section 26 unless made in the presence of a Magistrate. However, the discovery of facts under Section 27 that result from the confession can be admitted.
Principle:
Only the portion of a statement that directly leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible; the rest of the confession remains inadmissible.
3. Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47)
Facts:
A letter written by the accused to the deceased invited him to visit, after which the deceased disappeared and was later found dead. The accused’s confession to the police was under dispute.
Issue:
What constitutes a confession, and when can it be considered voluntary?
Judgment:
The Privy Council held that a confession must either admit the offence or substantially all facts that constitute the offence. A mere admission of circumstances of suspicion is not a confession.
Principle:
A statement is a confession only when it clearly admits guilt; partial or indirect admissions do not amount to confessions.
4. Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (AIR 1952 SC 354)
Facts:
A woman was accused of killing her husband and making a mixed statement, partly exculpatory (claiming accident) and partly inculpatory (admitting concealment).
Issue:
Can a confession that includes both incriminating and exculpatory parts be accepted partially?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that a confession must be accepted or rejected as a whole. It cannot be split to use only the incriminating portion while ignoring the exculpatory part.
Principle:
A confession should be considered in entirety; selective acceptance violates the principle of fairness.
5. State of Punjab v. Barkat Ram (AIR 1962 SC 276)
Facts:
The accused made a confession to a customs officer. The question arose whether a customs officer is a “police officer” under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that customs officers are not police officers, and therefore, a confession made to them is admissible unless obtained through coercion.
Principle:
Not all government officers are “police officers” for the purpose of Section 25. Only officers with powers of investigation and filing charges qualify.
6. Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119)
Facts:
The accused made a full confession to the police about murdering a person. His entire statement was used against him in court.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that a confession to a police officer is inadmissible in its entirety, except for the portion admissible under Section 27 (discovery of facts).
Principle:
Confessions to police officers are inadmissible, but any recovered evidence as a result of the confession may be admissible.
7. Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (AIR 1988 SC 1883)
Facts:
This case related to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. The admissibility of confessions made under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) was challenged.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that confessions made under special laws (like TADA) are admissible if they satisfy statutory safeguards — such as being recorded by a designated officer and being voluntary.
Principle:
Special statutes may override general rules, but the voluntariness of confession remains an essential test.
8. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
The case dealt with the use of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping during investigation.
Issue:
Whether such involuntary techniques violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that these methods are unconstitutional when administered without consent. Any confession derived from them is inadmissible.
Principle:
A confession must be voluntary — coerced or compelled confessions (including through scientific methods) violate Article 20(3).
🧾 Summary Table
| Section | Principle | Key Case | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Voluntariness of confession | Pyare Lal Bhargava | Involuntary confession inadmissible |
| 25 | Confession to police inadmissible | Aghnoo Nagesia | Full confession to police rejected |
| 26 | Confession in police custody inadmissible unless before Magistrate | Deoman Upadhyaya | Only discovery part allowed |
| 27 | Discovery statement admissible | Deoman Upadhyaya | Partial admissibility permitted |
| 30 | Co-accused confession | Kehar Singh | Must be used cautiously |
| Constitutional | Right against self-incrimination | Selvi v. State of Karnataka | Involuntary tests unconstitutional |
🏁 Conclusion
The admissibility of confessions rests primarily on voluntariness and legality. Courts carefully scrutinize whether the confession:
Was made without coercion,
Was made before a competent authority, and
Was not obtained by police pressure or inducement.
Thus, the credibility and admissibility of confessions play a vital role in ensuring justice and fairness in criminal trials.
RELATED Blog
0 comments