Gujarat National Law University

LAW OF EVIDENCE
DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL
CONFESSIONS UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

A CRITICAL OVERVIEW

Submitted to:

Dr. Jagadeesh Chandra T.G.,

Registrar (I/C) &Asst Professorof

Law,

Gujarat National Law University.

Submitted By:

Debargha Roy (19A039) and Shivam Bhattacharya (19B151)

Batch: 2019- 2024

Semester: V
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We are thankful to our Professor Dr. Jagadeesh Chandra T.G., Assistant Professor of Law,
Gujarat National Law University, for his continuous encouragement and valuable guidanceto
complete our research paper. We are thankful for his class discussions and thought-provoking
lectures that have helped us conceive interest towards the subject in general and the topic at
hand in particular. We value his determination and grit as a Professor to have accomplished in
imparting us with knowledge and a thought framework on the subject in times of online classes.

We also thank all associated Teaching and Research Associates working with Dr. Chandra T. G.
for enabling us with a smooth process of submission of our project and helping us navigate our
communication with Sir.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................4

II. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES...............................................................................................5

III. RESESRACH METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................5

IV. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................6

V. .STATUTORY FOUNDATION OF EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS........................7

VI. DETERMINING THE VERACTITY OF EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS…........8

VII. JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS .................9

VIII.........RETRACTED CONFESSION – BALANCING BETWEEN CONVICTION AND

ACQUITTAL...................................................................................................................13

IX. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................15

X. REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………….17

Page 3
DETERMINING THE APPLICABILITY OF EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS UNDER
THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT- A CRITICAL OVERVIEW

Abstract

The evidentiary value of extra judicial confessions has been a key focus of debate among legal
scholars from time to time. The Authors have attempted to relook at the statutory foundations and
allied judicial thinking on the subject through critical analysis of subject through secondary legal
research tools including but not limited to judicial precedents, prior research on the subject,
comments of Judges and senior Advocates in webinars/conferences. The paper expounds on the
development of the parameters/tests to determine the evidentiary value of extra judicial confessions
through a series of precedents by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The paper critically analyses the
precedents in light of a reformist approach keeping the principles of natural justice at the
forefront. A focus has been laid on the concept of retracted confessions in relation to extra-
judicially and has been analyzed from the point of right against self-incrimination. The Authors
conclude that no strait jacketed formula can be devised to determine the applicability of extra
judicial confessions, however one overarching principle that can be found is that it is not illegal to
base a conviction upon the uncorroborated confession of an accused person, provided that the
Court is satisfied that the confession was voluntary and true in fact.

KEYWORDS: Confessions under Evidence Law, Confessions to Private Persons, Witness

Page 4
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1. To critically discuss the statutory foundation and supporting judicial precedents on

evidentiary value of Extra Judicial Confessions;
2. To read principles of natural justice in application of Extra Judicial Confessions in Indian
Courts;
3. To determine whether a strait jacket test could be laid down for applicability of extra
judicial confessions;
4. To discuss retracted confessions in light of jurisprudence on right against self-incrimination
within the framework of extra judicial confessions.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The Authors have attempted to use secondary data analysis including but not limited to judicial
precedents, opinion of jurists and comments by Supreme Court judges and Senior Advocates in
webinars/conferences on the subject. The Authors have analyzed the attempts of Judiciary to lay
down guidelines/tests to determine the evidentiary value of extra judicial confessions through the
reading of Court judgements.

The style of project is both descriptive and analytical in nature. The first section discussing the
statutory foundations of extra judicial confessions and judicial interpretations have been put
forward in a descriptive manner along with critical approach. The second part of the paper takes an
analytical position on the area of law concerned.

Page 5
 II. INTRODUCTION

The word “confession” is seen to appear for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence
Act.1 Coming under the heading of Admissions, it can be understood prima facie that confessions
are merely one species of admission. Although the term ‘confession does not find a definition in
the Act, Courts, in multiple cases, have been found to adopt the definition of Mr. Justice Stephen
which defines confession as ‘an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime
stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.’ In Pakala Narayan Swami v.
Emperor, Lord Atkin observed that a confession must ‘either admit in terms the offence or at any
rate substantially all the facts which constitute the office’ and marked that a conclusively
incriminating fact is not itself a confession.

According to Wigmore, a confession is ‘an acknowledgement in express words, by the accused in a

criminal case, of the truth of the guilty fact charged or of some essential part of it.’ Bertrand Russel
popularly remarked that ‘In India, it is rampant…. For the taming of the power of the police one
essential requirement is that a confession shall never in any circumstances by accepted as
evidence.’ Having dwelt into what confession is, it is imperative to draw a line between judicial
and extra judicial confessions. Needless to mention, a judicial confession is one that is made before
a Magistrate or Court or any judicial body prescribed by law, whereas extra judicial confession is
one made to anybody other than a Magistrate, Court ot any judicial body. For instance, Sections
164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fall under judicial confession while confessions
made to private persons, police officers, or judicial officers in their private capacity are extra
judicial confessions in nature.

In case of extrajudicial confessions, what creates a differentiating factor is that it is made by the
accused elsewhere than before a magistrate or in court. It may have taken place in the form of
prayer, to a private person or in writing. Any confession, free and voluntary in nature, made by a
person accused of a crime admitting guilt in the course of conversation with persons other than
judge or magistrate may be deemed as extra-judicial confession. This confession can be made
during a conversation to oneself and it can be proved as evidence against himself when overheard

Page 6
by another person. Thus, the critiques of extra judicial confession have questioned its admissibility
on grounds of violation of right against self-incrimination. Further, the extra-judicial confession
cannot be relied alone and needs support of other supporting evidence. It may be proved by calling
the person as witness before whom the extra-judicial confession is made.

STATUTORY FOUNDATION OF EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

The scope of extra-judicial confessions is provided Section 24 to Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Though, it is a known piece of fact that under Evidence Act2, extra-judicial confessions do not have
much evidentiary value as contrasted with judicial confessions. In essence, it implies that it is a
much weaker form of evidence as compared to judicial confessions.

Under the Evidence Act, the Courts cannot admit the confessions made if it falls within any of the
four categories: threat, fear, inducement or promise. Another interesting observation made by the
Apex Court was in the case of ‘Sahoo v. State of UP’ wherein the Court admitted the confession
made by the accused to himself, stating that ‘it is not necessary to communicate the confession to
any definite individual’. The Courts while admitting such confessions as evidence, should
carefully scrutinize and determine that the confession was not made under threat or inducement. A
great deal of caution and care needs to be taken by the Courts. This form of confession needs to be
proved like any other fact.

Within the Evidence Law, extra-judicial confessions can be of three types:-

(a) Confession made to a police officer – not admissible under Section 25.
(b) Confession made in police custody – not admissible under Section 26.
(c) Confession made before the magistrate- it is admissible if made freely and voluntarily.

For walling within the ambit of Section 24 of the Act 3it must be shown that the confession was
2
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
3
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 24.
Page 7
made by the accused due to threat, promise or inducement. The Act provides under Section 25 and
26 that any that a confession made to a police in custody cannot be admitted in a Court of Law.
However, as an exception, extra-judicial confessions can be admitted based on the discretion of the
Judge, if the statement has been made freely and voluntarily.

However, a major limitation to the admissibility of extra-judicial confessions is because the

Evidence Act under Section 25 4to 27 excludes the confessions made in police custody. The main
reason behind this is for giving protection to the accused parties in custody. The main objective
behind the enactment of Section 26 5of the Act is to reduce the instances of police brutality of the
accused while in custody. The police officer may by ‘undue influence’ take confessions from the
accused, so to prevent such kind of scenarios, this section comes into play.

The basis of Section 27 of the Evidence Act 6is that that if the confession of the accused is
supported by the discovery of a fact then it may be presumed to be true and not to have been
extracted. It provides the confession which can be taken as proof.
The extent of the information received in the confession which can be made admissible would
depend on the “fact discovered”. This provision of this Section would only be applicable with
respect to information given to a ‘police officer’.

DETERMINDING THE VERACTITY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

It is important to note in this regard that extra-judicial confessions cannot be solely relied to
convict a person. It needs corroboration from other supporting evidences. This form of confession
can be made to any person or to police during interrogation of a crime. Extra-judicial confession
are those which are made to any person other than those authorized by law to take
confession.Based on the Latin maxim ‘habemus optimum testem, confitentemreum’ which
indicates that, “We have the best witness, a confessing defendant.” That is, it implies that the
confession made by an accused is the best piece of evidence.

This form of confessions are generally informally made, with the presumption that it cannot be
4
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 25.
5
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 26.
6
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 27.
Page 8
used as a source of evidence. The value of an extra-judicial confession can be relied upon if it is
found by the Court that it is clear and consistent with the facts of the case.

The Apex Court had however, in a recent verdict noted that extra-judicial confession can form the
sole basis of a conviction provided that the confession is made before an authority or witness who
is fair and unbiased. In this regard, it is essential to ascertain the veracity of the witnesses to whom
it is made or who heard the confession. The Courts have in a number of judicial opinions made it
clear that corroborative evidence in addition to the extra-judicial confession is of utmost necessity;
however, the Courts are vested with the requisite discretion to base the conviction solely on extra-
judicial statements spoken.

However, at the same time if consistent evidences are found which proves the extra-judicial
statements made, then it assumes a higher evidentiary value. In short, it signifies an admission
which is made outside of the judicial proceedings in the Court. Extra-judicial confession is a
weaker kind of evidence compared to judicial confession. Extra-judicial confessions means an
admission made in proceedings outside the Court. It suggests the fact that the accused was involved
or that he committed the crime. One can easily discern after going through the definition forwarded
by Stephen that the words ‘suggesting the inference that he committed that crime’ fail to convey
the real importance.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

Although the admissibility and credibility of the extra-judicial confession is ought to be taken on
the case by case basis, the Court, in the case of State of UP v MK Anthony 7, laid down five
essential conditions for convicting an accused based on an extra-judicial confession made by a
witness.

(a) the confession made is clear, voluntary and unambiguous.

(b) the confession made contains no omission which can suggest a different conclusion.
(c) The witness does not have any animosity against he accused.
(d) The confession made by the witness is without bias and truthful.
(e) The confession made passes the test of credibility.
7
State of UP v MK Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48.
Page 9
Thus, in this section, the paper attempts to broadly measure the nuances to which the Courts have
interpreted the concept of extra-judicial confessions.

Extra-Judicial Confessions must cover substantial facts of the crime alleged

In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab 8, Justice Mahajan elucidates that, “The confession
must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate, substantially all the facts which constitute the
offence. The statement which when read as a whole is of exculpatory character and in which the
prisoner denies his guilt is not confession, and cannot be used in the evidence to prove his
guilt.”Thus, the Court, in the interest of justice, draws a clear line between substantial coverage of
all facts alleged and not a heavily based inference drawn out of a statement made distinct from the
facts and nature of the alleged crime.

Relevance of the Witness to whom confession has been made

Discussing the relevance of the witness in validation of the confession, the Supreme Court in Mulk
Raj v State of Uttar Pradesh9held that it is not necessary for the witnesses to provide the actual
same words spoken. It is however, recommended that an attempt to provide the exact words spoken
should be undertake, and a correct description of the occurrence of the event should be given, in
order to make such confessions admissible. Thus, the witness may provide a clear description of
the confession in order to validate the confession in Court.

Another aspect which has been observed in several cases is that a witness while providing the
confession made by an accused act in good faith without any bias, however due to some
“unintended tricks of memory” a misinterpretation of the confession can be accrued. In such cases,
it becomes essential for the Courts to tread cautiously while considering the admissibility of the
confession.

The Supreme Court, in various instances, has accepted the credibility of persons such as village
headman as a valid piece of evidence under extra-judicial confession.10 The Court took a previous

8
Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354.
9
Mulk Raj v State of Uttar Pradesh,AIR 1959 SC 902.
10
Sivakumar v State by Inspector of Police, (2006) 1 SCC 714.
Page 10
judgment of the Court in Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar 11wherein the Court accepted the extra-
judicial confession made before the villagers as a valid piece of evidence fit to be admissible in a
Court of law.

Voluntary Nature of Confessions

Elucidating the voluntary nature of an extra judicial confession, the Court in the case of Ram Lal
vs. State of Himachal Pradesh12, noted that extra-judicial confessions can be admitted if it is proved
before the Court that it was made voluntary. It is not necessary, the Court stated, to corroborate
separately each statement made. A broad collaboration is sufficient to convict the accused.
However, the confession must not be coerced or involuntarily made to the person. The Court also
held that extra-judicial statements made should not be pre-determinedly biased towards the non-
acceptance of such confessions.13It is essential that the Courts taken into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, and the confession made therein, before deciding on the question of
admissibility. There is no straight jacket formula on determining the admissibility of extra-judicial
confessions and thus, active role of the Judiciary comes into play when the same is raised as an
issue before the Court of Law. Thus, it is necessary for the Court to look for other corroborating
evidences, before convicting an accused, in order to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

The Court, from time and again have held that extra-judicial confessions made to private
individuals, can be admitted.14 The ambit of extra-judicial confessions have been kept wide in the
interest of justice and allow for the investigation authorities to find corroborating evidence in the
direction of the extra-judicial confession. Hence, an outright declaration of non-admissibility of
extra judicial confessions have been ruled out by the Courts in various instances.

Emphasizing further, the Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram 15, provided that that
the extra-judicial statements spoken in a free state of mind without any coercion should be relied
upon by the Courts. The evidentiary value of which would depend on the attending circumstances
of the case, and the discretion of the Court.

11
Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 SC 18.
12
Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1983 SCC (Cri) 159.
13
Narayan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 1678.
14
State of Punjab v Harjagdev Singh, AIR 2009 SC 2693.
15
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram,2003 (8) SCC 180.
Page 11
Credibility of an Extra Judicial Confession

As per law, the defense is given a substantial position by law to challenge the credibility of an extra
judicial confession. Though the confessions made were in conjunction with the facts and
circumstances of the case, however, the Court did not consider them because they were made under
suspicious circumstances.16 The Court stated that in such types of scenarios, the credibility of the
confession, even if seemingly genuine, greatly reduces. The suspicion may arise from
inconsistency of the witness, hostility of the witness towards the accused or non-corroboration of
facts and the statements by the witness. Due to its unique nature, the defense is allowed to raise
questions on credibility of the statement and Court, in the interests of justice, admits it only when it
is convinced that it corroborates with the other available evidences. The same was held in the case
of Pakkirisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu 17 in which the Court mentioned that prior to the
consideration of the extra-judicial confessions the Courts are ought to look for a reliable evidence
of collaboration.

The Apex Court also stated that any minor discrepancies in an extra-judicial statement, which does
not potentially change the outcome of the case should be ignored.18In the instant case, there was an
error in the time of the confession, that is p.m. for a.m., for which the Court observed that it would
not make difference to the facts of the case. The SC eloquently put forward that such confessions
cannot be disregarded on flimsy grounds.

The Court summarized its position on credibility on extra judicial confessions using the three layer
framework laid down in the case of Alok Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal19:

a) Voluntariness of the confession made

b) Truthfulness of the confession

c) Corroboration with other piece of evidence.

Is extra-judicial confession reliable?

The Courts, from time to time, have had to deliberate on whether extra-judicial confessions should

16
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 607.
17
Pakkirisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu,AIR 1998 SC 107.
18
State of AP v Gangula Satya Murthy, AIR 1997 SC 1585.
19
Alok Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal,(2007) 12 SCC 230.
Page 12
be given the status of reliable evidentiary value. In the case of Baldev Singh v State of Punjab 20,the
Supreme Court reiterated that extra-judicial confessions made form a weak piece of evidence. The
Court further stated that it is necessary for the confession to be reliable and corroborated with other
pieces of evidence present-on-record. While taking into considerations such confessions it must be
ensured that there is no omission or fabrication on the part the accused.

Since the confession made did not inspire confidence and contained contrasting statements, such
confessions can neither be accepted nor be admitted.21The confession given was not proper based
on the circumstances of the case. However, at the same time, the Court also noted that extra-
judicial confession can sometimes be the sole criteria for convicting an accused.

Thus, the present position of law on admissibility of extra judicial confessions relies on the
judgement of Sahadevan v State of Tamil Nadu 22, in which the Court supported the admission of
extra-judicial statements if it fulfilled the following grounds: -

(a) the confession, being a weak piece of evidence, needs to be carefully considered depending
on the facts of the case.
(b) The confession was made voluntarily and inspires confidence.
(c) The confession is supported by other circumstances of the case.
(d) The confession does not have any material discrepancies.
(e) The confession can be proved in accordance with the law.

Supreme Court has in many cases acquitted the accused whenever it found that the extra-judicial
confession was not reliable or was weak or there was no corroboration or on any other ground
which it considered as relevant for acquitting the accused. The Apex Court admitted the
confessions, stating that sufficient corroboration to the confessions made, would make it
admissible.23The Court has meticulously expanded the ambit of extra judicial confessions in
proving guilty of the accused. By laying out a framework from time to time, it is ensured that the
same is not applied beyond its scope and used to cause miscarriage of justice.

RETRACTED CONFESSION- BALANCING BETWEEN CONVICTION AND

20
Baldev Singh v State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564,
21
PolyamiSukada v State of Madhya Pradesh,AIR 2010 SC 2977.
22
Sahadevan v State of Tamil Nadu,(2012) 6 SCC 403.
23
Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2019 SC 688.
Page 13
 ACQUITTAL

Another important consideration which has arisen before the Courts in numerous instances is the
admissibility of such confessions, when it was once made and subsequently retracted by the
accused party. Any confession which is made voluntarily is taken back or revoked, it is known as a
retracted confession. The Court has the power to decide the credibility of such confession. It differs
from each case because of the facts and circumstances. If the confession is proved, then it can be
considered as a base for conviction. The retracted confession can be used as legal grounds for
conviction only if the Court satisfies that the confession is true and it is made voluntarily. But the
retracted confession should be supported by corroborative evidence.

The Supreme Court has in this regard, stated that if it can be proved that the confession previously
made is voluntary and true, then the subsequent retraction or denial of the confession will not be
accepted by the Courts. The Apex Court had in a landmark case held that a retracted confession can
be used for convicting the accused. The only caveat here is that the Judge would have to act with
care and caution. This holding was subsequently reiterated by the Supreme Court in 2004 24. In
essence, it implies that if the extra-judicial confession made earlier is prove beyond reasonable
doubt to have been given by fair means, then the subsequent retraction would not be taken into
consideration. The Court held in the case of that Ramesh Chandrabhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat 25
held that, ‘retracted confessions are generally unreliable, and should not be accepted for
consideration. However, if it is proved to be voluntary and genuine, then only it can be considered
for admissibility by the Courts’.

Retracted Confessions in relation with Right against Self-Incrimination

Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 guarantees protection against the compulsion to be
witness against oneself. The application of this provision extends to statements made during police
interrogations.26 This could be interpreted to mean that no person can be forced to make a
confession against his will. Since there is a danger that the confessor may implicate himself against
his will, the law of evidence regarding the same is kept rigid in order to ensure that only voluntary
confessions are admitted by the Courts. A right to retracted is crucial as it puts the Court on enquiry
24
ParmanandaPegu v. State of Assam, AIR 2004 SC 4197
25
People'S Council For Civil Rights vs State Of Kerala, AIR 2009 SC 3391.
26
Nandini Satpathy v. P L Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025.
Page 14
as to the voluntary character of the confession.27 The Courts have ensure that the right to withdraw
what has been previously said is taken as an extension of civil liberty and constitutional right
against self-incrimination. When a confession has been retracted, the onus falls on the prosecution
to prove that the statement made was true. The Court has a duty to evaluate to evaluate the
evidence concerning the confession by looking at all aspects. 28The first step governing
admissibility of extra judicial confession is whether it is voluntary or not. The word ‘voluntary’
used in respect of a confession refers to a confession that is not caused by inducement, threat or
promise.29

The Indian Evidence Act makes no distinction whatsoever between a retracted confession and an
unretracted confession and both are equally admissible and may be taken into consideration against
the accused though it may be that less weight would be attached to a retracted confession. 30 The
weight to be attached to a retracted confession must depend on the circumstances under which the
confession was given, and the circumstances under which it was retracted including the reasons
given for retracted.31

It can be understood that it is not illegal to base a conviction upon the corroborated confession of
an accused person, provided that the Court is satisfied that the confession was voluntary and true in
fact. The admissibility of confessions in general and extra judicial confessions in particular have
always been point of debate. Various scholars regard that a retracted confession must not in any
case be applicable in lines with the right against self incrimination. However, there must be due
acknowledgement to the fact that such confessions allow police investigation to be in the right
direction and hence, Courts have in certain cases allowed the same.

However, in with the rise in cases of forged confessions made as a part of fabricated evidence, the
Courts must be mindful of its misuse against interests of justice and take serious measures to
ensure that the confessions are corroborated with other available evidence and aqeuate opportunity
is given to the accused to disprove the allegations made.

27
Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230
28
State of Tamil Nadu v. Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan, AIR 2001 SC 2778; RajenBoro v. State of Assam, 2003 (2)
GLT 632
29
Shanker Rao Chitnavis v. Ganpat Rao Pande, AIR 1925 All 606
30
Re: KodurThimmaReddi and Ors, AIR 1957 AP 758
31
BhuboniSahu v. The King, AIR 1949 PC 257
Page 15
 X. CONCLUSION

That is the reliability of extra-judicial confessions should be verified by the Courts, and it is for this
reason that collaborative evidence is required. The Courts have not laid down any ‘strait-jacket
formula’ for determining under what circumstances these confessions would be admitted. The
precedents given by the Courts have varied from time to time, however, a recent trend of the Courts
taking a more flexible approach for admitting extra-judicial statements has been observed.

It is hereby concluded that it is not illegal to base a conviction upon the uncorroborated confession
of an accused person, provided that the Court is satisfied that the confession was voluntary and true
in fact. From the point of legality, the fact that a confession has been retracted becomes immaterial.
It is because of the fact that there is an assumption that a confession is not regarded as involuntary
merely because it has been retracted. Before consideration of the evidentiary value of a retracted
confession, it must be proved to be true and voluntary. In cases of co-accused, the confession may
be corroborated by material particulars.

The study of extra-judicial confessions had received much attention in the eyes of media during the
famous trial of State of Maharashtra v K. N. Nanavati32 in which a statement made by the accused
Nanavati to the Chowkidar of the building immediately after the shooting when he saw his wife in
an objectionable state with another man, was held to be an extra judicial confession and treated as
direct evidence of guilt. It must be understood that extra judicial confessions, by nature, are
extremely weak evidence and have to be carefully examined by the Court. The same can hold
credibility when it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by
other prosecution evidence. The Courts, in an attempt to lay down a test to determine the
evidentiary value of such confessions have failed to go beyond the basic premises ought to be
established and hence, the interpretation changes with each new case before the Court. Thus, a
balance has to be struck before a conviction or acquittal is recorded in such cases.

Confession has played a vital role in criminal law. It is a part of admission provisions in the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. If confession is true and admissible in Court, then it is considered satisfactory
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The interpretations of extra judicial confessions has to
be read in light of the constitutional safeguarded under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution33.

32
State of Maharashtra v K. N. Nanavati,1962 AIR 605.
33
Constitution Of India, 1950, Art. 20(3).
Page 16
The Evidence Act provides sound guidelines in this aspect, and it is for the Courts to protect the
concept of extra-judicial confessions. It is thus in our opinion, that a more flexible approach while
interpreting Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act34 is required.

REFERENCES

ACTS
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 24.
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 25.
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 26.
4. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 27.
5. Constitution Of India, 1950, Art. 20(3).

CASES
1. Alok Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal , AIR 1959 SC 18.
2. Alok Nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal, (2007) 12 SCC 230.
3. Baldev Singh v State of Punjab, (2009) 6 SCC 564,
4. Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 607.
5. BhuboniSahu v. The King, AIR 1949 PC 257.

34

Page 17
6. Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2019 SC 688
7. Mulk Raj v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 902.
8. Nandini Satpathy v. P L Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1025.
9. Narayan Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1985 SC 1678.
10. Pakkirisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1998 SC 107.
11. Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 354.
12. ParmanandaPegu v. State of Assam, AIR 2004 SC 4197
13. People'S Council For Civil Rights vs State Of Kerala, AIR 2009 SC 3391.
14. PolyamiSukada v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 2977.
15. RajenBoro v. State of Assam, 2003 (2) GLT 632.

16. Ram Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1983 SCC (Cri) 159.
17. Ramesh Chandrabhai Rathod v. State of Gujarath, AIR 2009 SC 3391.
18. Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 SC 18.
19. Re: KodurThimmaReddi and Ors, AIR 1957 AP 758.
20. Sahadevan v State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403.
21. Shanker Rao Chitnavis v. Ganpat Rao Pande, AIR 1925 All 606.
22. Sivakumar v State by Inspector of Police, (2006) 1 SCC 714.
23. State of AP v Gangula Satya Murthy, AIR 1997 SC 1585.
24. State of Maharashtra v K. N. Nanavati, 1962 AIR 605.
25. State of Punjab v Harjagdev Singh, AIR 2009 SC 2693.
26. State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, 2003 (8) SCC 180.
27. State of Tamil Nadu v. Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan, AIR 2001 SC 2778
28. State of UP v MK Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48.

Page 18