A confession, particularly a judicial confession is not a tainted piece of evidence and if it is made freely and without inducement or compulsion, does not suffer from any infirmity such as exists in the testimony of an approver. A confession may implicate other persons besides the maker. The effect of the confession as against the maker is different from that as against the others. The maker might have implicated the others out of enmity or in order to propitiate certain persons. He would stand to lose nothing by implicating the others along with him. This is one of the facts which make the confession, as against the others, of less value than as against the maker himself. Even if the confession is true as against the maker, it might be false as against the others. A distinction is made in law between the effect of a confession as against the maker and that as against the others. Under the Evidence Act the confession can only be taken into consideration as against the others. (sic) A rule of caution has been adopted by all Courts that A should not be convicted on the basis of B's confession without material corroboration. In the face of the distinct possibility that the others might have been falsely implicated, it would not be correct to convict them without material corroboration. Unless the Court is in a position to say that the others have not been falsely named in the confession, there would always remain a doubt which would prevent the conviction of the others. If they are to be convicted, that doubt must be removed by the production of evidence indicating the connection of the others with the crime. One cannot be said to be one's own enemy, and one would have no reason to accuse ownself falsely of a crime. One may not lose anything by implicating others falsely, but the same cannot be said of accusing own-self falsely. That is why confessions, as against the makers, are supposed to be the best evidence. "A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the strongest sense of guilt, and therefore it is admitted as proof of the crime to which it refers." Phipson writes that "confessions may reasonably be taken to be true as against the defendant himself."
The retraction of a confession by itself does not require corroboration before the confession can be made the basis of conviction. If the confession is found to be voluntary and genuine, the retraction is wholly immaterial. A retracted confession is simply a mixture of two pieces of evidence, (1) admission of the accused that he committed the crime and, (2) his statement that his admission was false. The question that arises is which piece of evidence to believe. Both cannot exist together; both may be false, but both cannot be true. If it is found that the confession was genuine, it means that the retraction or subsequent statement about its being false has no value. If the Court is not satisfied that the confession was genuine, it cannot be used in evidence, whether corroborated or not. In that case in order to justify conviction there must be evidence of such a nature as to justify conviction without any confession.
Again a case where there is no proof of 'corpus delicti' must be distinguished from another where that is proved; in the absence of proof of 'corpus delicti', a confession alone may not suffice to justify conviction.
It may be doubted whether a conviction can be based solely upon an extrajudicial confession, but there is no reason for hesitating to base conviction on a judicial confession.
