KASHMIR LAW COLLEGE NOWSHERA

SESSION 2020

ASSIGNMENT OF LAW OF EVIDENCE – I

NAME: Mehnaz Rather

SEMESTER : B.A. LL.B 9TH SEM

ROLL.NO. 42

TOPIC: sections 17,18,21,23,24,26,29 and 30

TEACHER INCHARGE : MRS MUSABIT

TEACHER'S REMARKS: …………………………………..

TEACHERS' SIGNITURE.:……………………..
CONTENTS:

● Motto of Indian Evidence Act 1872

● Admission

● Meaning of Admission

● Section 17 Definition of Admission

Three parts of the definition:

1.
Characteristics of Admission
2.
The admission is admissible because of the following reasons
3.
Nature of Admission
4.
i) Self-serving statements; and

ii) Self-harming statements

Case laws related to section 17

5.
Section 18 Admission by party to proceeding or his agent
●
By suitor in representative character:
1.
Statements made by
2.
Principle and scope
3.
1. Parties to the proceeding (Section 18).

2. Agents authorized by such parties (Section 18).

3. Persons occupying representative character (Section 18).

4. Persons having pecuniary or proprietary interests [Section 18(1)].

5. Persons from whom the parties derived interest [Section 18(2)].

4. Case laws related to section 18

● Section 21, proof of admissions against persons making them,and by or on their behalf.

Scope
1.
Exceptions
2.
 (1)Statements as dying declarations
(2)Statements of mind and Bodily feeling
(3)When the statements otherwise relevant
Case laws related to section 21
3.
● Section 23, Admissions in civil cases , when relevant

1.Explanation

2.Principle

3. Explanation

Case laws related to section 23

4.
Section 24, confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding
1.
(1)Comments
(2)Definition
(3)Essential conditions
(4)Scope of section 24
(5)Principle

1. The confession is the result of inducement, threat or promise;

2. The inducement, threat or promise has come from a person in authority;

3. The inducement, threat or promise relates to the charge in question;

4. The inducement, threat or promise holds out some worldly benefit or advantage

(6) voluntary and involuntary confession

(7) Case laws related to section 24

Section 26, Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him
2.
Explanation
1.
Principle
2.
Police custody
3.
4. Immediate presence if a magistrate : an exception
5. Case laws related to section 26
3. Section 29, confession otherwise relevant not to become Irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.
1. Comments
1. under a promise of secrecy;

2. By practicing a deception on the accused;

3. When the accused was drunk:

4. In answer to question: or

5. Without warning

2. Case laws related to sec 29

Section 30, consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same
●
offence

Explanation
1.
Illustrations
2.
Scope
3.
Principle
4.
Confession of co-accused
5.
Rule to be observed
6.
Co-accused being jointly tried
7.
Confession of co-accused and testimony of accomplice
8.
Relevant case laws of section 30
9.
Motto of Indian Evidence Act 1872:

The passing of The Indian Evidence Act in 1872 was a ground breaking step. It was to change the entire working of courts as

far as admissibility of evidence was concerned in our Indian courts.Prior to the introduction of this act, the rules of

admissibility of evidence in our Indian re were based on traditional systems. Different caste, community, social group had

their own way of providing/submitting evidence in the court. The submission of evidence was hugely based on faith of a

person, his social position and status in society, his community etc. In short there was no uniform method.

Admission:

     Admission plays a very important part in judicial proceedings. If one party to a suit or any other proceeding proves that

the other party has admitted his case, the work of the court becomes easier.

           An Admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it under certain exceptional circumstances.  The

Evidence Act, Sections 17 to 23 deals with the Admissions. 

Meaning of Admission:

   The expression 'Admission' means "Voluntarily acknowledgment of the existence or truth of a particular fact". But In the

Evidence Act, the term 'Admission' has not been used in this wider sense.  It deals with admissions by statements only oral

or written or contained in an electronic form. Admission plays a very important role in proceedings. If one party to the suit

or any other proceeding proves that the other party has admitted his case, the work of court becomes easier. An Admission

must be clear, precise and not vague or ambiguous. 

Section 17 Definition of Admission:

According to 17 of Indian Evidence Act, "An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or [contained in electronic form

(Amendment w.e.f. 17/10/2000)] which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by

any of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned."

There are three parts of the definition:

1) It defines term "admission"

2) It says that an admission will be relevant only if it is made by any of the person specified in the Act.

3) "Admission" is Relevant only in the circumstances mentioned in the Act.

Characteristics of Admission : 

To constitute admission, the following characteristics are to be present as per definition stated above.

1) It may be oral or documentary

2) It is a statement to suggest any inference to any fact in issue or relevant fact.

3) It must be made by any person prescribed under the Act; and

4) It must be made under the circumstance prescribed under the Act.

       The admission must be clear and unambiguous. The admission is admissible because of the following reasons:

a) Admission as a waiver of proof;

b) Admission as a statement against interest;

c) Admission as evidence of contradictory statement;

d) Admission as evidence of truth.

Admission is the best substantive evidence that an opposite party can rely upon.

Nature of Admission:

          The statements made by parties during judicial proceeding are 'self regarding statements'. The self regarding

statements may be classified under two heads -

i) Self-serving statements; and

ii) Self-harming statements.

i) Self-serving Statements - Self-serving statements are those, which serve, promote or advance the interest of the person

making it. Hence they are not allowed to be proved. They enable to create evidence for themselves.

ii) Self-harming - Self-harming statements are those which harm or prejudice or injure the interest of the person making it. 

These self-harming statements all technically known as “Admissions" and are allowed to be proved.

Case laws related to section 17:

Bishwanath Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad

Admissibility is substantive evidence of the fact admitted while a previous statement used to contradict a witness does not

become substantive evidence and merely serves the purpose of throwing doubt on the veracity of the witness.

 Income Tax Officer versus Mangat Ram Norata Ram, 2011

Admission is based evidence against the meter and it can be inferred from the conduct of the party. Admission implied by

conduct is strong evidence against the maker but he is at liberty to prove that such admission was mistaken or untrue.

 Joshna Gouda v. Brundaban Gouda, 2012

An admission must be clear and unambiguous in order that such an admission should relieve the opponent of the burden of

proof of the fact said to have been admitted.

Section 18 Admission by party to proceeding or his agent:

Statements made by a party to the proceeding, or by an agent to any such party, whom the Court regards, under

the circumstances of the case, as expressly or impliedly authorized by him to make them, are admissions.

By suitor in representative character:

Statements made by parties to suits, suing or sued in a representative character, are not admissions, unless they

were made while the party making them held that character.

Statements made by:

(1) Party interested in subject-matter:

Persons who have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding, and who make the

statement in their character of persons so interested, or

(2) Person from whom interest derived:

Persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit, are

admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the persons making the statements.

Principle and scope:

Persons by whom admissions must be made and whose admissions are relevant: Sections 18, 19 and 20 lay down a

list of persons who can make admissions. Proceeding under this section may be civil or criminal. But the general

rule is that the statements are admissible against the party only making them and not against any other person.

When Sections 18, 19 and 20 are put together it provide a long list of persons whose admissions also become

relevant:
1. Parties to the proceeding (Section 18).

2. Agents authorized by such parties (Section 18).

3. Persons occupying representative character (Section 18).

4. Persons having pecuniary or proprietary interests [Section 18(1)].

5. Persons from whom the parties derived interest [Section 18(2)].

1. Parties to the proceeding:

Parties to the proceeding include not only those who appear on the record, but also persons who are not parties on

the record, and they are interested in the subject matter of the suit. They are considered by law as real parties in

interest. It is the basic principle that all statements of the party in a suit or proceedings are relevant. Defendant

was seeking declaration as only legally married wife of the deceased. She also admitted that plaintiff was also

legally married wife of the deceased. Admission of defendant was substantive evidence in support of marriage

between plaintiff and deceased. The list of properties allotted, as per partition, to the share of each of the parties

proved on behalf of the defendants was held admissible under Section 12 of the Evidence Act. The written

statements of a party in an earlier proceeding were held to be relevant in the subsequent proceeding.

Where there are more than one plaintiffs or defendant to a suit the statements of one plaintiff or defendant should

not bind co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. Admission by one of the co-owners that the other co-owner had one-third

share in the joint properties can be relied upon. The Supreme Court opined that even if it is relevant due to

concern pecuniary interest much weight cannot be attached to against the co-parties.

The party is bound by his statement only to the extent of his own interests. An admission is only best evidence

against the party making it. Admission made by a witness cannot be regarded as an admission made by the party

who called him. Documents partake character of disputed document cannot be treated as admission for purpose of

decree order.

2. Agents authorized by the parties:

The statements of the agent are admissible against the principal according to law of agency or which govern the

statements of coparcener. The agent, of course, should have expressed or implied authority to make such

statement and the statements of the agent can bind the principal only during the continuance of the agency. But,

the fact of the agency must be proved before the admission of agent can be received.
The agency must be proved before the admission of the agent. Where a station master of a railway company while

reporting loss of goods to the police and gave the name of a missing porter as a suspect, it was held to be admission

against the railway company. The admission by a party or his agent in a proceeding is admissible under section 18

of the Evidence Act and by Boards of decisions of the Apex Court and various High Courts it has now settled that

the facts admitted by a party in its pleading need not be proved.

The lawyer is appointed by the client to conduct his case and any statement as to the facts made by him with full

authority of the client is an admission against the client. In criminal cases there is no provision for an admission by

a council.

An admission by one partner made in a representative capacity is an evidence against the firm provided it is made

in the ordinary course of business, where several persons are jointly interested in the subject matter of the suit an

admission of any one of them is receivable not against himself but against others whether they are suing or sued.

3. Persons occupying representative character:

The statements made by a person who sues or issued, in a representative character is relevant if it was made

during the time when he was holding such character. “This principle is grounded on the fact that a statement

against the interest of a person making it will not be made unless truth compelled it.” The person’s occupied

representative character includes trustees, receivers, assignee of an insolvent’s estate, executors, administrators,

guardian etc. In regard to ancestral property admission by father would be admissible against the son, the former

being the representative interest.

4. Persons having pecuniary or proprietary interests:

Under section 18(1) the statements of persons who, though not parties to the proceeding, have a pecuniary or

proprietary interest in the subject matter, is relevant provided the statement is made by him in the character of a

person jointly interested. For example, when certain goods were consigned for carriage, then both the consigner

and consignee have interest in goods. “The requirement of identity in legal interest persons is of fundamental

importance.” In a suit for declaration of title, the statement of the suitor’s father that the defendant was in

possession is admitted. Admission regarding partition of the joint family property made by one of the beneficiaries

to the property is admissible in proof of partition assented subsequently.

5. Persons from whom parties derived interest:

Under section 18(2) the statements of person from whom the parties to the suit derive their interest in the subject

matter of the suit are admissible. “It has to be shown that such statements were made during the continuance of
their interest in the subject matter of the suit. A person of this kind is known as “predecessor in title.” No

admission could be made after parting with the interest.

Case laws related to section 18:

Braham raj Singh V. Braham Raj Devi

It was held that written statement concluded plaintiffs claims is no evidence against his co-defendents.

Mutheogowda V. Chhenigowda

It was held that an admission is the best evidence against only the party who made it.

Wiliam V. k.B

It was held that any statement made by any agent during the time he holds that character , it will be relevent in any

suit by or against him in his representative character.

Shedeo V. Board of Revenue

The Allahabad high court admitted the evidence of statement of the plaintiff father to the effect as to in whose

possession the land in dispute was.

. Hardatt Sharma V. Jai Kishen Shamlal

The J&K high court held that a statement made by a person after he ceased to have any interest in the property in

question shall not be an admission against the present owner of the property.

Section 21, proof of admissions against persons making them, and by or on their behalf:

Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, or his representative in

interest; but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them or by his representative in

interest, except in the following cases:-

(1) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it is of such a nature that, if the

person making it were dead, it would be relevant as between third persons under section 32.

(2) An admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it, when it consists of a statement of the

existence of any state of mind of body, relevant or in issue, made at or about the time when such state of mind or

body existed, and is accompanied by conduct rendering its falsehood improbable.

(3) An admission may be by or on behalf of the person making it, if it is relevant otherwise than as an admission.
Scope:

The general rule laid down in Section 21 is that admissions are relevant and may be proved against person who
makes them or by his representative-in- interest. It is quite natural that a person always makes statement in his
favour even if the statement is false. The other proposition is that the statements will be used against the person
who himself cannot prove his own statements. If persons are allowed to prove their statements, they will make the
statement in their favour, such type of self-serving statement by party is irrelevant and cannot be regarded as
evidence. The reason is that a man might bring evidence to prove the statement made by himself and take
advantage from it. An admission of the party previous to the suit is relevant under section 21. Because, admissions
are substantive evidence. Its weight, however, is a matter of consideration of the Court. In a case of dishonour of
cheque the accused had proclaimed in his own handwriting that he had issued cheques to complainant covering
value of Rs. 300 lakh and had also promised that on encashment of those cheques he would further give cheques of
Rs.1.85 lakh. It has held that it amount to an admission of liability and is a sufficient proof that these cheques were
issued by the accused towards his liability.

A self-serving statement by a party is irrelevant unless it comes within the exceptions in Section 21 of the Act. “If a
man makes a declaration accompanying an act it is evidence, but declarations made two or three days, or a week,
previous to the transaction in question cannot be evidence, otherwise it would be easy for a man to lay grounds for
escaping the consequences of his wrongful acts by making such declarations.” The simple meaning is this that the
statement of admission must be proved by third person other than the maker of the statement. An accused stated
that he was present at the time of incident. The entire statement of the accused recorded by the Magistrate was an
admission and not as a confession. Effect of admission should be considered in proper

The statement made by the accused to the police officer regarding incident which was subsequently recorded in
FIR, was not a confession but it as admission of facts. When confessional first information report by the accused to
a police officer it cannot be used against his in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Exceptions:

The section has appended three exceptions to the general rule that admission cannot be used by a person or his
representative-in-interest:

When the statement is such of a nature that it should have been relevant as dying declaration
(1)
under section 32;

When it consists of a statement of the existence of bodily feeling or state of mind falling under
(2)
section 14.
(3) When the statement otherwise relevant falling under section 21(3).

1. Statements as dying declarations:

Section 32 of the Evidence Act lays down that the statement of persons, who are dead, or who cannot be found or
who otherwise cannot be called before the court, may be proved under the circumstances mentioned in the sub-
clauses (1) to (8) of that section. Thus, the statement of such persons may be proved in any proceeding to which it
is relevant as between third persons under section 32. Illustrations (b) and (c) relate to the first exception. This
exception is to be found in Section 95 of the Road Cess Act which lays down that returns filed by or on behalf of
person shall be admissible in evidence against him but shall not be admissible in his favour.

2. Statement of mind and bodily feeling:

The statement of existence of any state of mind or body made by a person is relevant. But such statement should
have been made at or about the time when such state of mind or body existed and followed by conduct. Such state
of mind or body is relevant also under section 14. [Illustration (d) and (e)]. Section 14 only provides that such
statements are relevant, whereas the Section 21 (b) demands that such statement must be proved on behalf of
person making them. The rule laid down in this section is subjected to the provisions relating to confessions of the
accused in Sections 24, 25 and 26 and also subjected to Sections 164 and 281, Cr. PC.

3. When the statement otherwise relevant:

The clause (3) of Section 21 lays down that an admission may be proved by or on behalf of a person making it if it
is relevant otherwise than as an admission. The condition is that the statement must be relevant to determine the
fact in issue and only previous statements are relevant.

For example, where plaintiffs sought to establish their pedigree by proving that A and B were brothers, a statement
to that effect made by one of the plaintiffs long before the controversy arose, were held relevant. The statement
admissible under clause (3) is also relevant under sections 6 to 13 and 34 and 35 of the Evidence Act. The
statement of A in a previous proceeding that B was a tenant of the property in dispute is an admission and can be
used when in the later proceeding he denied that fact.

Case laws related to section 21:

In Biswanath v. Dwaraka Prasad

The apex court held that the Admissions are usually telling against the maker unless reasonably explained.There is

no necessary requirement of the statement containing the admission having to be put to the party because it is

evidence proprio vigore.
Bharat Singh case:

The court observed that theAdmissions are substantive evidence by themselves, in view of Sections 17 and 21 of the

Indian Evidence Act, though they are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted. whether the party making

them appeared in the witness box or not and whether that party when appearing as witness was confronted with

those statements in case it made a statement contrary to those admissions does not matter.

Bhogilal chunilal Pandya v. State of Bombay

The court observed held Statements made by persons may be used as admissions against them even when they

mayn’t have been communicated to any other person.

Section 23, Admissions in civil cases, when relevant:

In civil cases no admission is relevant, if it is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be

given, or under circumstances from which the Court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it

should not be given.

Explanation:

Nothing in this section shall be taken to exempt any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil from giving evidence of

any matter of which he may be compelled to give evidence under section 126.

Principle:

Section 23 is applicable only to civil cases and gives effect to the maxim, interest reiplicae ut sit finis litium. It
means that in the interest of the state there should be end of litigation. The section expressly provides that in civil
cases an admission is not relevant when it is made: (i) upon an express condition that evidence of it is not to be
given. It means that when a person admits the liability upon express condition that evidence of such admission
should not be given, or (ii) under circumstances from which the court can infer that the litigating parties agreed
together that evidence of it should not be given.

That is, where there is agreement between parties that the admission will not be proved in evidence such
admission will not be allowed and is not relevant. When such circumstances happen, in law it is expressed as
“without prejudice.” It means “the use of what I commit myself to, if not accepted by you, is impermissible.” The
letter written with regard to an action and marked “without prejudice” was only privilege for the purpose of that
action.
It is very often found that the litigating parties, by negotiations, want to settle their disputes amicably, and the
negotiations usually takes place out of the Court. “Very often for the purpose of buying peace and settling disputes
by a compromise people made so many settlements, if such settlements are allowed to be proved in court,” it will
become impossible for people to reach any compromise. Section 23 provides protection for negotiation.

When one of the parties to the dispute writes to the other making an offer for settlement in certain terms he may
stipulate that in case his offer is not accepted his letter is not to be used against him as an admission of liability.”
Such letter of communications made “without prejudice” and is not accepted to be admissible as evidence.
“Confidential overtures of pacification and any other offers or propositions between litigating parties, expressly or
impliedly made without prejudice are excluded on grounds of public policy,” otherwise the clever and ingenious
man may frustrate the spint of law when he knows the weak points of the case of his opponent. For example, if
parties are to be prejudiced by efforts to compromise, it will be impossible to attempt any amicable arrangement of
differences. Admission or statements which are proved to be wrong or mistaken are not binding on the party
making it. Lord Mansfield once observed that “all men must be permitted to buy peace without prejudice to them
should the offer not succeed, such offers being made to stop litigation without regard to the question whether
anything is due or not.” Thus the letter marked “without prejudice” protects subsequent and even previous letter in
the same correspondence. The fact is that a document is stated to have been written “without prejudice” will not
exclude it.

According to Section 23 an admission will not be relevant if it is given on condition either express or implied. It is
strictly confined to the cases where there is dispute and negotiation for settlement of dispute between parties is
going on. For example, the plaintiff was injured while he was getting down from the train when the train just
started to move at the time of his getting down.

The plaintiff filled a suit for damages. The railway authorities issued damage certificate containing mark “without
prejudice” requesting plaintiff to be examined by the Railway doctor. The damage certificate is relevant and cannot
be used as evidence when a correspondence relating to a dispute was initiated by a letter marked “without
prejudice.” The protection will apply to whole proceeding even if the reply-letter is not so marked. Similarly,
during the pendency of a petition for restoration of conjugal rights, the husband wrote a letter to the father of wife
confessing his guilt. The letter was relevant and not admissible under section 23 of the Act. The privilege of
without prejudices will continue even after the settlement and cannot be disclosed either by the parties or by any
third persons.

“The evidence as to negotiation of compromise and the statements made during such negotiations are generally
without prejudice. It is ordinarily against public policy to admit such evidence. The statements made in the
compromise petition even if treated as valid admissions, cannot be treated as evidence when the compromise
fails.”

The principle of “without prejudice” has no application in criminal cases. Similarly, if the statement is not related
to the purpose of negotiation it is also not protected.

Explanation:

Under explanation the professional communications made by a client to his legal adviser are generally protected

from disclosure under section 126. But, communications made to the legal adviser in furtherance of a illegal acts,

crime or fraud are not protected. The court can compel the legal adviser to give evidence of any statement made for

illegal purpose.

Case laws related to section 23:

Paddock v Forrester (1842 3 Scott NR 715: 133 ER 1404) 

A letter was written by one party ‘without prejudice.’ The reply to the letter was not so marked but it was held to be

inadmissible by the court. Only those admissions which come under the purview of Section 126 are to be compulsorily

disclosed by the lawyer.

 Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab (1953 SCR 94)

 The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Privy council in Pakala Narayan Swami v Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47) and

cited two points: confession must either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts and secondly, a mixed up

statement, containing confessional statements which will lead to acquittal is no confession. The court cannot remove the

exculpatory part out of a statement and deliver a decision on the basis of the inculpatory part of the statement.

Sahoo v State of UP (AIR 1966 SC 40)

The accused was talking to himself and made the confession of killing his own daughter which was overheard by the witness.

This was held to be confession relevant in evidence.

Section 24 , confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding:

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession

appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge

against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to
give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would

gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

Comments:

A confession is an admission by the accused. Section 17 defines admission as statements from which an inference
can be drawn. When any such statement is made by a person in criminal cases which suggest an inference that the
persons might have committed an offence is a confession. This is an admission of an accused and is called
confession. “A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the fact which
constitute the offence.” The court must be satisfied that “the inducement, threat or promise if any, has been fully
proved. “Confessional statement is admissible in evidence. It is relevant fact. The court may rely thereupon if it is
voluntarily given. It may also form the basis of the conviction, wherefore the court may have to satisfy itself in
regard to voluntariness and truthfulness thereof.”

The laws dealing with confession are contained in Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act. “Confessions are received
in evidence in criminal cases upon the same principle on which admissions are received in civil cases, namely, the
presumption that a person will not make an untrue statement against his own interest.” Thus, “confessions are
merely species of admission,” Law is clear that a confession cannot be used against an accused person unless the
court is satisfied that it is voluntary.

Definition:

The term “confession” has not been defined in the Evidence Act. As stated earlier an admission by the accused is
regarded as confession. Sir Stephen in his Digest of the Law of Evidence has defined that “a confession is an
admission made at any time by a person charged with crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed
a crime.” Thus, the confession is an acceptance of the guilt of the accused. According to Sir Stephen, any statement
made by an accused charged with offence at any time, even before the arrest, may be regarded as confession.

The Privy Council, on the other hand, defined the term, “a confession must either admit in terms the offence, or at
any rate substantially all the facts which constitute an offence.” A mere declaration is not a confession unless it was
made with an intention to confess. “An incriminating statement which falls short of an absolute confession, but
from which the inference of guilt follows, is a confession within the meaning of this Act.” The confession, thus,
must be in relation to offence. Compelling of accused to be searched in the presence of witnesses would not
amount to confession.
Essential conditions:

From the above discussions a statement of an accused will amount to a confession if it fulfils the following
conditions:

(1) The accused must admit that he had committed the crime.

(2) From the statements of the accused some positive inferences must be drawn about his implication in the
offence where the accused in so many words admits to have committed the offence.

(3) If the exculpatory part of the statement given by the accused is inherently improbable it may be rejected and
inculpatory part may be admitted.

(4) The confession must be voluntary, true and trustworthy.

(5) The confession must not be prompted by inducement, threat or promise. A statement could not be said to be
result of any threat, coercion or inducement by police or any other person.

Scope of Section 24:

Although the substantive law of confession has been laid down in Sections 24 to 30 it is the positive rule of
criminal law that no confession is admissible unless it is voluntary. Sections 24, 25 and 26 have described the
circumstances. If these are not considered to be voluntary these are not admissible. A confession is voluntary if it
has not been obtained from the accused either by threat, promise, inducement or promise.

Principle:
According to Section 24 the confession made by the accused is irrelevant on the following grounds:

1. The confession is the result of inducement, threat or promise;

2. The inducement, threat or promise has come from a person in authority;

3. The inducement, threat or promise relates to the charge in question;

4. The inducement, threat or promise holds out some worldly benefit or advantage.
Thus the Section 24 lays down the rule of exclusion of confession which is not voluntary.

1.  Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise:

If a confession is not free and voluntary and is obtained by force or violence such confession is not admissible.
Where there is element of inducement, threat or promise in making confession before person in authority, the
confession should not be admitted. A confession can only be admitted if it appears to the court that confession is
voluntary. Any threat or promise used by the person in authority in getting confession it will not be taken into
evidence. A gentle threat, slightest inducement or a very little hope of advantage may taint confession.

It is sufficient for excluding a confession that appears to have been result of an inducement, even if it is not proved
that the inducement reached the accused. When the accused has not made any complaint that the confessional
statement made by him was under pressure or compulsion, such confessional statement must have been made
voluntarily.

It is the duty of the court to judge the nature of confession whether it is voluntary or not. “The inference of the
non-voluntariness may be suggested by the confession itself or by the evidence of the prosecution or by the
evidence adduced by the accused person or by the surrounding circumstances which the court is always bound to
take into consideration.” If the circumstances create a probability in the mind of the court that confession was
improperly obtained it should be rejected.

In deciding a particular confession made under section 24, “the question has to be considered from the point of
view of the confessing accused as to how the inducement or promise from person in authority would operate in his
mind.” The accused was in custody for a period of three months and was not allowed to meet his family member.
He stated that the recording officer obtained his signature on some written papers was hold not voluntary. A
confession made by the accused because he thought it best that by doing so he could have hoped to avoid the
discovery of his entire scheme of conspiracy to misappropriate the large amounts of assets of Insurance Co., is not
voluntary.

2.  Person in authority:

Next disqualification of rejecting confessional statement is person in authority. A person holding a special legal
status has authority to influence the proceeding against the accused. “A person in authority for the purpose of this
section must be a person who stands in such relationship to the accused as to imply some power of control or
interference in regard to his prosecution.” For example, the magistrate police officers, prosecutor, government
officers, doctors departmental heads etc. “A person in authority within the meaning of Section 24 should be one
who by virtue of his position wields some kinds of influence over the accused.” The father is not person in
authority.

3.  Inducement, threat or promise relates to charge:

The inducement, threat, promise etc. must be related to the charge in question. The person against whom charge
has been framed must have been forced to give confessional statement by the person in authority. The
inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the present case not other cases. An accused was charged
with murder and promise was made that if he confesses the truth in the present case, he will get benefit in another
case the promise is not related to the present case, so the confession is valid.

4.  Benefit or advantage Worldly or temporal nature:

The inducement, threat etc. would be sufficient to convince the mind of the accused that he would get some
advantage or avoid evil of temporal nature. Where a person charged with murder was made to make confession to
Panchayat which threatened his removal from caste for life.

The confession was held to be valid. But mere inducement, threat or promise is not enough unless it is in the
opinion of the court that such inducement, threat or promise is sufficient to cause reasonable belief in the mind of
the accused and that by confession he would get advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to
the proceeding against him

Voluntary and involuntary confession:

It is very often called that all confessions are not the basis of conviction. If a confession is involuntary it is
irrelevant. “Under section 298, Cr. PC it is well settled that the determination of all matters of fact on which
admissibility of evidence depends is the province of the judge. Questions relating to the admissibility of evidence
are questions of law and must be determined by the judge. It is, therefore, for the judge to decide whether an
alleged confession was made voluntarily.” A confession is, therefore, very important piece of evidence.

Case laws related to section 24:

Pakala Narayan Swami V. Emperor, 

Lord Atkin observed that “A confession must either be admitted in the context of any offence or in relation with any

substantial facts which inaugurate the offence with criminal proceedings. And an admission of serious wrongdoing, even

conclusively incriminating fact is not itself a confession”.

Nagindas Ramdas v Dalpatram Ichharam 

 the Supreme Court of India explained the effects of admission, that admissions are generally true and clear of any

ambiguity, and they shall be considered as the best proof for proving any fact in issue or relevant fact by the admission of

certain facts. On the other hand, the informal admission which is made during the day to day activity just help in bringing

the facts either by an oral or written statement by the admission of either party.

Baburao Bajirao Patil v. State of Maharashtra

The court while deciding the case explained the principle that “the Court before ascertaining the facts for the purpose of

deciding the facts in issues of the case, should begin ascertaining the case facts with all other evidences possible related to

the case and then only it shall turn to the approach of confession by the accused in order to administer complete justice to

the conclusion of guilt of the accused.

Section 26, Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him:
No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.

Explanation:
In this section “Magistrate” does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the
Presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a Magistrate exercising the powers of a
Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882 (10 of 1882).

Principle:
Section 26 is the extension of the principle laid down in Section 25. While Section 25 applies to all confessions
made to some police officers, this section includes confession made to “any person” other than police officer, while
in police custody. Under this section, it is provided that no confession made by an accused to any person while in
custody of a police officer shall be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Thus, the section is intended to prevent of coercive method of extorting confession.

The section is based upon the same logic that the police in order to secure confession uses all types of coercive
methods, because the accused is put in constant fear and forced to confess. “The reason is that a person in the
custody of police is presumed to be under their influence and it provides opportunities for offering inducement or
extorting confession, but the presence of a Magistrate is a safe guard and guarantees the confession.”

Police custody:
Police custody simply means police control implying restrictions and restrain imposed by police officer. It
commences from the time when one’s right to movement is restricted by the police officer. It includes both
physical control or temporary restriction imposed on a person. An accused is under police control means he is to
stay under direct or indirect police surveillance.

Thus a woman was left under the custody of a village chowkidar or when she was left to Tonga-driver by the police;
both are regarded to be police custody. In the second case confession by the accused to Tonga-driver was held to
be irrelevant. Therefore, the custody of a police officer for the purpose of the Section 26 is not merely physical
restriction, but it includes any kind of police surveillance. To constitute custody of police, some sort of custody is
sufficient under section 26. “The crucial test is whether the accused is a free man when he makes the confession or
his movements are controlled by the police either by themselves or by some other agency employed by them.

The section is based upon the same logic that the police in order to secure confession uses all types of coercive
methods, because the accused is put in constant fear and forced to confess. “The reason is that a person in the
custody of police is presumed to be under their influence and it provides opportunities for offering inducement or
extorting confession, but the presence of a Magistrate is a safe guard and guarantees the confession.”

Police custody:
Police custody simply means police control implying restrictions and restrain imposed by police officer. It
commences from the time when one’s right to movement is restricted by the police officer. It includes both
physical control or temporary restriction imposed on a person. An accused is under police control means he is to
stay under direct or indirect police surveillance.

Thus a woman was left under the custody of a village chowkidar or when she was left to Tonga-driver by the police;
both are regarded to be police custody. In the second case confession by the accused to Tonga-driver was held to
be irrelevant. Therefore, the custody of a police officer for the purpose of the Section 26 is not merely physical
restriction, but it includes any kind of police surveillance. To constitute custody of police, some sort of custody is
sufficient under section 26. “The crucial test is whether the accused is a free man when he makes the confession or
his movements are controlled by the police either by themselves or by some other agency employed by them.

Immediate presence of a Magistrate: An exception:

As a general rule an accused made a confession to the police or while in police custody is not relevant unless it has
been made in the immediate presence of a magistrate.

The confession in presence of a magistrate by the accused is an exception to the general rule laid down in Sections
24, 25 and 26. A confession by the accused in presence of a magistrate is relevant only when it is done in
accordance with rules laid down in Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If the magistrate
fails to observe procedures and formalities of Sections 164 and 364, Cr. PC, even though the confession is made by
the accused in immediate presence of a magistrate, it is inadmissible.

When a magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions under Section 164, Cr. PC. or who
receives confession at a State when Section 164, Cr. PC. does not apply, is an extra-judicial confession. A
confession made while in custody is not to be proved against the accused as the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of
the Evidence Act, do not permit it unless it is made before a magistrate.

If the confession was not recorded by a competent magistrate the confession of a person in police custody would
not be relevant. Where the accused were in police custody and no magistrate was present there admission of the
accused is not an admission in evidence. It is said by the Supreme Court that the strict rule under section 26 is not
applicable to a departmental enquiry against a government employee.

In case of oral statement, other than that required to be recorded, made in presence of a sub-inspector and a
constable who had taken the accused under arrest to a magistrate on leave, is not admissible. “The question arose
in some cases whether a confession made by an accused before a magistrate not reduced to writing may be proved
by oral evidence and it has generally been answered in the affirmative. An oral confession which is not open to any
exception under sections 24, 25 and 26 is relevant fact as an admission under section 21 and may be proved
against the accused by the oral evidence of the magistrate.”

Case laws related to section 26:

See zwing lee Ariel V. State of M. P

It was held that immediate presence of the magistrate means his presence in the same room where the confession is being

recorded. His presence in the adjoining room can’t afford the same degree of protection against torture.

Kanda Padyachi V. St. Of Tamil Nadu

Held that the statements of an accused while in custody to a doctor explaining the injuries showed his presence in the room

where a women was killed and who had caused those injuries by biting him was held to be relevant because it does not

amount to confession.

Section 29, confession otherwise relevant not to become Irrelevant because of promise of
secrecy, etc.
If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a

promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining

it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered,
whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make

such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.

Comments:
Section 29 provides that there is no bar to admissibility of a confession even if it was made under the promise of
secrecy. Under this section a confession made by an accused is relevant even if it can be excluded from being
proved under the following circumstances:

When it was made to the accused under a promise of secrecy;

1.
By practicing a deception on the accused;
2.
3. When the accused was drunk:

4. In answer to question which the accused need not have to answered: or

5. When no prior warning was given to accused that he was not bound to make any confession and that might
be used against him.

1.  Under a promise of secrecy:

The principles of admission are applied here to encourage accused persons to speak truth. When a confession
obtained from an accused by promising him that what he will confess will be kept secret is relevant under the
section. For example, a booking-clerk was arrested for defalcation of money. The auditor told him, “it would
be better for you to tell the truth and refund the money. Everything would be kept secret.” After which the
booking clerk was brought before the Traffic Manager in whose presence he confessed to have made
defalcation. Although the confession of the booking clerk is not relevant under section 24, it is nevertheless
relevant under this section.

2.  By practicing deception:

When a confession is obtained by practicing fraud and deception with the accused the confession is admissible as
if it was not taken by inducement, threat or promise. “If it is admissible, the court is not concerned how the
evidence is obtained.”

3.  Accused was drunk:

The intoxicated persons generally speak truth. If any confession is made by an accused who was drunk, in spite of
the fact that the liquor was supplied by the police officer, the confessional statement is not inadmissible.
4. In answer to questions:
There is no bar to the admissibility of a confession for being made in answer to question. When an accused is
questioned as to the fact he is not bound to answer whatever may be the form of question. If any answer is given by
the accused it will be treated as confession. Mere questioning of an accused by a police officer, resulting in a
voluntary statement, which may ultimately turn out to be incriminatory, is not compulsion.

5.  Without warning:

Under the heading the confession of the accused will be relevant also if no warning was given that he is not bound
to make any statement and that whatever he states will be used against him. The section provides that a voluntary
confession does not become inadmissible merely because the maker was not warned before that it might be used
against him as evidence. Under section 164(3)of the Cr. PC 1973 the magistrate before recording confession of an
accused has to explain to the accused that he is not bound to make any confession and that if he does so, it will be
used as evidence against him. There are conflicts of decisions as to whether the Section 164(3), Cr. PC, overrides
Section 29 of the Evidence Act.

Case laws related to sec 29:

R V. Maqsud Ali

It was held that where two persons were left alone in a room on the belief that they were all alone, but secret tape recorders

were recording there conversation, the confession thus recorded were held to be relevant.

Section 30, consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence:

When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession
made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the
Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as
against the person who’ makes such confession.
Explanation:

“Offence,” as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit the
offence.

Illustrations:

(a) A and В are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said—“B and I murdered
C.” The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.

(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that С was murdered by A
and B, and that В said—“A and I murdered C.”

This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as В is not being
jointly tried.
Scope:

This section is an exception to the general rule that a confession of an accused is

inadmissible against other accused persons who are jointly tried. It makes a departure from
the common law of England. Section 30 lays down when there are more than one accused
who are jointly tried for the same offence and a confession made by one of them at the trial,
the court may take into consideration the confession against all accused [(Illustration (a)]. If
the statement of the accused does not amount to a confession it is not admissible against co-
accused. Because, a confession of an accused especially when it is self-exculpatory, cannot
be used against a co-accused, when the confessing accused was not facing any trial. “The
principle on which the confession of one accused is allowed to be used against co-accused is
that self implications are supported to provide some guarantee of the truth of accusation
made against the other.” It is also not necessary that the confession of the co accused must
be made to a magistrate.

Principle:

The principle that a confession by one accused may be taken into consideration against co-
accused is founded on: (i) more than one accused are jointly tried, (ii) they are tried for the
same offence, (iii) confession should have been made by one of them, and (iv) the
confession should be legally proved. “On the whole, the section has not been looked upon
with favour by the judges who have to administer the law, and it has been laid down in an
uninterrupted series of cases that a confession by an accused is not to be treated as
“evidence” (in the sense used in Section 3) against his co-accused, but it may only be taken
into consideration (i.e. an element in the consideration of all facts in the case) along with
other evidence and that a conviction based solely on such confession send unless
substantially corroborated by independent evidence”—SARKAR.

Confession of co-accused:

The Privy Council once observed that “a confession of a co-accused is obviously evidence of
a very weak type. It does not come within the definition of ‘evidence’ contained in Section 3.
It is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused, and it cannot be
tested by cross-examination.” It again observed that “the confession is only one element in
the consideration of all the facts proved in the case. It can be put into the scale and weighed
with the other evidence.”

The Supreme Court accepted the views of the Privy Council and observed that the
confession of an accused against the co-accused is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the
term. If the co-accused escapes from custody and the charge itself were framed as
proclaimed offender, the confession of the co accused cannot be made use.

Although the principles laid down in Section 30 is not very sound policy of the law “seems to
rest on the recognition of the palpable fact that such a confession cannot fail to make an
impression on the Judge’s mind, which it was therefore to control limits than to ignore
altogether.”

Rule to be observed:

“The confession of an accused person is not evidence in the ordinary sense of the term as
defined in Section 3. It cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can only be used
in support of other evidence. The proper way is, first, to marshal the evidence against the
accused excluding the confession altogether from the consideration and see that if it is
believed, conviction should safely be used on it. If it is capable of belief independently of the
confession, then, of course, it is not necessary to call the confession in aid.

However, cases may arise where the judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it
stands, even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an
event the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the other
evidence, and thus fortify himself in believing that without the aid of the confession would
not be prepared to accept it.

The confession of a co-accused is not so substantive evidence, it can be pressed in service

only when the court is inclined to accept the other evidence and feels the necessity of
seeking for an assurance in support of his conclusion deducible from the other evidence.” A
statement of an accused would be admissible against a co-accused only under Section 30 of
the Evidence Act. Such a statement of the co-accused is required to be corroborated by
adduction of independent evidence. A confession of a co-accused can be treated as
substantive evidence and can be pressed into service only when the Court is inclined to
accept other evidence and sees the necessity of seeking for an assurance in support of the
conclusion deducible therefore.

Recently the Supreme Court has observed that the confession of a co-accused can be used
only for corroborative purposes but not as a substantive evidence. The confession cannot be
held to be used only to corroborate other substantive evidence produced by the prosecution.
A confession intended to be used against a co-accused stands on lower level than an
accomplice evidence, because the latter is at least tested by cross-examination while the
former is not.

It was also held by the Supreme Court that the Section 30 permits the taking into
consideration of the confession of an accessed against co-accused subject to conditions laid
down in the section. Where the statement of the accused does not contain anything
incriminating the accused, it cannot be used against a co accused. Thus, the confession of
co-accused cannot be substantive evidence against other accused. “It is per is not evidence.”

Co-accused being jointly tried:

A confession by an accused may be taken into consideration provided other co-accused are
jointly tried for the same offence. To make a joint trial legal, the accusation must be a real
one and not merely an excuse for a joinder of charges which otherwise cannot be joined.
“Same offence” means identical offence and not an offence of the same kind. Where an
accused who was jointly tried but died before the judgment, it was held that the confession
was admissible against his co-accused and could be used only for corroborating the other
evidence on the record and not as substantive evidence. The stress in section so is pre-
requisite of joint trial for the same offence.

Confession of co-accused and testimony of accomplice:

The confession of co-accused under section 30 does not have higher probative value than
that of the testimony of an accomplice in the court of law. The confession of co-accused
alone is not legally sufficient to uphold a conviction.
Relevant case laws of section 30:

In Prakash Dhawal Khairnar v State of Maharastra

it was held that confessional statement of one accused recorded under section 164, Cr. PC
by a magistrate would be admissible against the other accused as both were jointly tried. If
the confession is not recorded by the magistrate under section 164, Cr. PC it may be used
under section 30 of the Evidence Act if they are not regulated by Section 24 of this Act.

Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar

 

the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence, and can be pressed
upon only when the Court is inclined to accept other evidence, and feels the necessity of seeking
an assurance in support of its conclusions deductible from other evidence.

  Pancho v. State of Haryana

that confessions of a co-accused aren’t the substantive piece of evidence and that it can only be
used to confirm the conclusion drawn from other evidences in a criminal trial.