Evidentiary Value Of Judicial And Extra-Judicial Confessions

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Confession is a statement made by an accused person that is sought to be proven against him in a criminal proceeding in order to establish that he committed an offence.
• Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act gives judicial confessions evidentiary value and expresses that a confession made in the presence of a magistrate or in court and recorded by the magistrate as prescribed by law is presumed to be a true and genuine confession and the accused can be tried for the offence.;
• Section 164 of the CrPC empowers magistrates to record confessions, so it is not necessary to know which magistrate recorded the confession unless he is prohibited from doing so. As a result, in order to raise the presumption, the accused's identity must be clear and proven in the confession in order to persecute him for the guilt of the offence he committed.
• A confession can be made in any form. When the accused admits his guilt directly before a court of law or to the magistrate in court, then it is known as judicial confession, But when it is made to any person outside the court, then it is called an extra-judicial confession. It includes any confession made to a police officer or to anyone else, as well as any confession made to oneself. It is usually viewed as a weak type of evidence.

INTRODUCTION

Sir Taylor defined evidence law as a method of using an argument to prove or disprove any issue of fact. The truth is subject to judicial investigation.;

In India, various types of evidence are presented in court on a daily basis, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 governs the field of evidence law. However, one may wonder what the true meaning of evidence is and what types of evidence are commonly presented in court.

Confession is a statement made by an accused person that is sought to be proven against him in a criminal proceeding in order to establish that he committed an offence.

Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act gives judicial confessions evidentiary value and expresses that a confession made in the presence of a magistrate or in court and recorded by the magistrate as prescribed by law is presumed to be true and genuine confession and the accused can be tried for the offence.;

Section 164 of the CrPC empowers magistrates to record confessions, so it is not necessary to know which magistrate recorded the confession unless he is prohibited from doing so. As a result, in order to raise the presumption, the accused's identity must be clear and proven in the confession in order to persecute him for the guilt of the offence he committed.

JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

A confession can be made in any form. When the accused admits his guilt directly before a court of law or to the magistrate in court, then it is known as judicial confession. Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act mentions judicial confession and discusses presumption with regard to documents produced as a record of evidence.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

Extra-judicial confessions are those made by the accused outside of a magistrate or in court. It is not required that the statements be addressed to a specific individual. It could have taken the form of a prayer. It could be a private confession to a private person. Extra-judicial confessions are defined as "a free and voluntary confession of guilt by a person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other than the judge or magistrate seized of the charge against himself." After committing a crime, a man may write a letter to a relative or friend expressing his regret. This could be considered as a confession. Extrajudicial confessions can be accepted and used as the basis for a conviction if they pass the credibility test. Extra-judicial confessions are usually made in front of a private person, which can include a judicial officer acting in his personal capacity. It also includes a Magistrate who is not authorised to record confessions under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. or a Magistrate who is authorised to record confessions but receives the confession at a stage when Section 164 does not apply.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

Judicial confessions are those granted to a Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C during committal hearings, proceedings, or in front of the bench. Extra-judicial confessions, on the other hand, are those made to anyone other than those permitted by law. It may be made to any entity or police officer in their personal capacity during the prosecution of an offence.;

To confirm the judicial confession, the person to whom the judicial confession is made does not need to be called as a witness. An extra-judicial confession, on the other hand, is demonstrated by having the person who makes the extra-judicial confession as a witness.

Judicial confessions may be used as evidence of guilt against the convicted party if they appear to the court to be voluntary and genuine. However, extra-judicial confessions cannot be relied on alone because they must be supported by other evidence.

A confession can be made in any form. When the accused admits his guilt directly before a court of law or to the magistrate in court, then it is known as judicial confession, But when it is made to any person outside the court, then it is called an extra-judicial confession. It includes any confession made to a police officer or to anyone else, as well as any confession made to oneself. It is usually viewed as a weak type of evidence.

RELATED CASE LAWS

In Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor[(1939) L.R. 66 I.A. 66], the accused admitted his guilt before the police but later refused to identify himself before the Magistrate and during trial, and the court held that this did not amount to confession because there was no direct admission of guilt by him.

In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan [1963 All LJ 459: (AIR 1963 SC 1094)],the Supreme Courtlifted that a retracted confession has enough value to form any other legal grounds to establish any conviction only if the Court is satisfied that it was true and was on someone’s own will. But the Court has to testify that the conviction cannot solely be made on such confessions until and unless they are corroborated.

In the case of Sahoo v. State of UP [(1965)3 SCR 86: (AIR 1966 SC 40 : (1966 Cri. LJ 68)],due to continuous quarrels between the accused and his daughter-in-law, the accused killed her and made the statement that with that the daily quarrels with her end. The court considered the statement to be a confession and held that for a confession to be relevant; it is not necessary that it must be communicated to some other person.

In State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh [(1974) 2 SCWR 563 : (1975 Cri LJ 282)],the Supreme Court held that an extra-judicial confession’s value only increases when it is clearly consistent and convincing to the conclusion of the case or the accused cannot be held liable for the conviction solely on the basis of the confession made by him.

In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp. (4) SCC 259], the Supreme Court stated some guidelines for deciding the case of extrajudicial confession. The court must verify the credibility of the person who has to make the confession and all of his statements shall be tested by the court to conclude whether the person who made the confession is trustworthy or not, otherwise, the statement of a person who is not so trustworthy cannot be used for making the confession.

The Supreme Court ruled in Pancho v. State of Haryana [(2011) 10 SCC 165]that confessions made by co-accused have little evidentiary value and cannot be considered as substantive evidence. As a result, the confession of co-accused can only be used to corroborate the conclusion reached by other probative evidence.

CONCLUSION

Evidence is simply anything used to acknowledge or explain the truth of submission, and all types of evidence are thought to be extremely important in determining the outcome of a case.;

Evidence is important in both civil and criminal cases because proof of facts will be ineffective if there is no evidence. Furthermore, the various types of evidence are notable in terms of their relevance and admissibility standards. In other words, it would be impossible to determine the outcome of a case if there was no evidence in the case.

It is concluded that the expression "confession" refers to any claims made by an accused that proves his guilt. As a result, any accusation levelled against him that can be used to prove his guilt is referred to as a confession or confessional statement by a person convicted of any crime. Confessions are admission enhancements that distinguish it, so the phrase "All confessions are admissions, but not all admissions are confessions" is commonly used.

Learn the practical aspect of IPC HERE and CrPC HERE.
;