The Indian Evidence Act contains a set of rules and issues which governs the admissibility of evidence in Indian Courts. The adoption of this law was a remarkable step in the legal governance of the country as prior to that the entire system was based on traditional patterns differing from place to place depending on social groups and caste. The Act brought uniformity of laws that applies to all Indians. The Act originated during the British Empire but it has stayed true to its origin to date except for being amended from time to time to keep up with the changing times. It applies to the whole of India except the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
The word & lsquo evidence' includes all those instruments which can be brought before the Court and convince the court of the facts of the case. The definition of Evidence is provided in the Evidence Act, 1872. It states that evidence can be primarily of two types: oral and documentary evidence. Oral evidence includes all the statements presented by the witness in connection to the matters of facts of the case. Whereas documentary evidence includes all documents which include electronic records as well.
These two kinds of evidence can be of two types and are direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would be any evidence that relates directly to the existence or non-existence of a fact in the issues of the case. Whereas, circumstantial evidence is any piece of evidence that relates to the existence or non-existence of a relevant fact to the issues of the case.
For example: If X comes and tells you that it was raining outside today, it is forming direct evidence that it must have rained. If X comes and tells you that he just came from outside and it was wet and damp everywhere it forms circumstantial evidence that it must have rained outside.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, there is no definition of confession provided. It only appears for the first time under the heading of Admission. Hence, the definition of admission applies to confession. It states any written or oral statement that is put forth for the consideration of any conclusion of the facts of the case or the relative facts of the issue. A confession is a statement when there is any inference put forward to the facts in the issue of a criminal offense. We can also say that a confession is a statement that proves the accused guilty.
An admission is when any person voluntarily acknowledges the existence of any facts in an issue or facts of the case. It has no concrete pattern as it can be both formal and informal. Formal admission is also known as judicial admission. It is an admission that is being made during a judicial proceeding. Whereas an informal admission is an admission made in the course of day-to-day activities. Formal evidence is entirely admissible in the court of law which means that the court acknowledges such admission and it accepts it. However, with an informal admission, there is a lot of room for reasonable doubt and requires further proof for it to be admissible in a court of law.
There is a very thin line that differentiates a confession from an admission. Even though the Evidence Act does not exclusively point out but admissions are usually used during civil proceedings when on the other hand confessions are used in criminal proceedings.
Admissions are not conclusive whereas if confession is made deliberately and voluntarily then it may be accepted as conclusive of matters so confessed. This means that a conviction can be based on the confession statement itself. Whereas, there is other additional evidence required for a conviction along with the admission.
A confession is always made against the person making it. An admission may be used on behalf of the person making it.
There can be several reasons why a confession is made. It may be sometimes made if the issues and facts of the case have been wrongly framed. This can be usually a result of interrogation and the conclusion observed by law enforcement. A confession can actually help clear any such doubts and grey areas of the criminal act. It helps in learning the truth of the crime and how it happened. It also helps to gather information regarding the crime and aids investigators to arrive at an analytical conclusion. However, sometimes an accused can confess to a crime to avoid harsher sentences.
There can be different types of confession which may differ from case to case. However, broadly confession can be of two types- a judicial confession and an extrajudicial confession. The different types of confessions hold different evidentiary value and they differ based on how, when, and where these confessions are made. A confession if made to oneself is also considered as relevant evidence in a court of law.
A judicial confession is a confession that is made before the court or the magistrate during legal proceedings. It is also known as a formal confession. If a confession is made by the accused which is proving him guilty in the presence of a magistrate or a court of law provided that such confession is “ voluntary” and “ true” then such a confession would be holding a substantive value. However, it is important to note that such a confession would be very difficult to convict a person based on only that. The confession has to be voluntary, genuine, and freely made. The court must also find it true that the accused has indeed committed the crime. There should be no question of any other corroboration arising in the case and only when the court is certain then the court shall record the conviction of the crime to him. It may seem like a judicial confession should be enough for a person to be convicted but it would be really unsafe to convict someone without adequate reason and based only on that confession. Many times, an accused may confess for several reasons in the court of law and one major reason could be out of frustration or especially if they want the questioning to stop. So, a judicial confession alone cannot convict anyone.
Extrajudicial confessions are those statements that are made at any place other than the court of law or before any magistrate. It is also called informal confession. An extrajudicial confession if made to oneself or in private would still qualify as a confession. However, just like judicial confession, the court has to make sure that such confession is made voluntarily and is genuine without any undue pressure. No one should self-incriminate themselves and every confession must be proved to be true. The judicial and extrajudicial confessions hold different evidentiary value and the court will have to test them to establish a fact. Usually, the evidence of an extrajudicial confession is weak and not considered favorable. It requires a lot more reasoning, clarity, and convincing. There is a lot of room for interpretation so the court has to ensure that any statement was not wrongly interpreted by any witness. There is a proper need for cross-examination of the witnesses and the court has to ensure that such a confession was actually made, that it is true, and must also reason why such a confession was made to a particular witness. So, it is fair to say that extrajudicial confession doesn't have much evidentiary value but its value rises when it is supported by other such evidence.
This is a type of confession which is made by a person before the trial but he revokes it afterward. After someone commits a crime, the police investigate the matter and examine the accused along with the witnesses. If the police are of the opinion that the accused is proved to have committed any crime then he submits a report to a magistrate. If the accused is willing to admit the guilt, then the police send him to the magistrate to record his statement. The magistrate once satisfied would have to record the statement which may be proved at the trial. However, at the trial when the accused is questioned if he has committed the crime or not, he can state otherwise and answer in the negative saying that the crime was not committed by him. He may also deny statements recorded by him to the magistrate as well and may say that he was under the undue influence of the police. In this sort of scenario, the confession made to the magistrate before the trial by the accused is known as a retracted confession.
A retracted confession is having a weak evidentiary value unless it can be corroborated with evidence. There have been cases where the courts have convicted someone based only on the retracted confession where they have been of the opinion that the retracted confession was genuine, made voluntarily, and was true. It can be a very unsafe step towards justice if someone was convicted based only on that confession without any corroborative evidence. The investigation process can be a very exhaustive and taxing ordeal and one may never know when someone admits guilt under influence and fear.
When there is more than one accused in the case and one of them admits to the crime in such a way that he will be proved guilty and such a confession is made voluntarily and without any pressure, then the court can also hold all the other accused guilty as well.
A confession to the police cannot be held against that person. This is so because such confession before the police can be a result of the threat, pressure, and sheer fear. There are many cases of torture during police custody as well and a person may be well under fear when he is confessing to a crime. So, such a confession would be quite unreliable.
If there is a secret agent of police who is deputed with the aim of getting a confession from someone then such a confession would hold no value. Any other situation where the confession was made without the presence of police would still qualify as a confession.
Exclusion of confessional statements: If any statement even if made to the policeman falls short of a confession will be admissible in the court of law. For example: if the accused tells the police that he witnessed the murder in question would lead to evidence against him proving that he was present when the murder took place.
Confession in an FIR: The part of the confessional FIR (First Information Report) which does not amount to a confession can be admissible in a court of law. That part of the FIR can also be used against him as evidence. Statements given during an investigation: A statement given to the police confessing to a crime even before he has been established as an accused is irrelevant. Confession made in Police Custody: A confession made in police custody holds no value unless it is a confession made to the magistrate. The word custody does not have to be merely physical. It does not mean that a policeman has to hand-cuff someone and take control of that person physically. Anytime the movement of a person is controlled by a police officer he is deemed to be under custody. For example, A police officer asks & lsquo X' to follow him as he is a leader in a murder case. If X follows him, he is deemed to be in the custody of the police officer.
However, even though the confession made by the accused to the police cannot be used against him, he can rely on those statements in his defense. For example, there is a statement in the FIR that says that the accused stabbed someone. It cannot be used against him to convict him. However, he can rely on those statements to show that he may have taken such steps out of grave fear and provocation.
Any confession that is made under threat or in return for any promise related to the charge could also be irrelevant.
If there is a fact that is discovered as a consequence of information that has been received from the accused, in the custody of a police officer, so much so that that information amounts to a confession or relates to the fact so discovered can be used to prove the accused guilty. So, there should be some distinct elements involved:
1. There must a discovery of fact as a consequence of the information received from the accused
2. The person who gives such information must be the accused.
3. The accused must be in police custody
4. It must be proved by anyone that there has been a fact discovered directly from the information given by the accused
5. The fact that is discovered has to be related to the commission of the crime, hence, must be relevant.
A criminal case is entirely dependent on how you present your evidence. It is very difficult for a person to handle his criminal case alone, competently. A criminal lawyer understands what evidence should be produced and in what manner. A criminal lawyer is an expert and has experience in dealing with criminal matters. He/She will be able to guide you as to how to gather evidence, present it in court and also deal with the overall court matter for you on your behalf. Not hiring a good criminal lawyer could be fatal to your case and may cost you a fortune as well as your life.
The Indian Evidence Act contains a set of rules and issues which governs the admissibility of evidence in Indian Courts. The adoption of this law was a remarkable step in the legal governance of the country as prior to that the entire system was based on traditional patterns differing from place to place depending on social groups and caste. The Act brought uniformity of laws that applies to all Indians. The Act originated during the British Empire but it has stayed true to its origin to date except for being amended from time to time to keep up with the changing times. It applies to the whole of India except the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
The word & lsquo evidence' includes all those instruments which can be brought before the Court and convince the court of the facts of the case. The definition of Evidence is provided in the Evidence Act, 1872. It states that evidence can be primarily of two types: oral and documentary evidence. Oral evidence includes all the statements presented by the witness in connection to the matters of facts of the case. Whereas documentary evidence includes all documents which include electronic records as well.
These two kinds of evidence can be of two types and are direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would be any evidence that relates directly to the existence or non-existence of a fact in the issues of the case. Whereas, circumstantial evidence is any piece of evidence that relates to the existence or non-existence of a relevant fact to the issues of the case.
For example: If X comes and tells you that it was raining outside today, it is forming direct evidence that it must have rained. If X comes and tells you that he just came from outside and it was wet and damp everywhere it forms circumstantial evidence that it must have rained outside.
Under the Indian Evidence Act, there is no definition of confession provided. It only appears for the first time under the heading of Admission. Hence, the definition of admission applies to confession. It states any written or oral statement that is put forth for the consideration of any conclusion of the facts of the case or the relative facts of the issue. A confession is a statement when there is any inference put forward to the facts in the issue of a criminal offense. We can also say that a confession is a statement that proves the accused guilty.
An admission is when any person voluntarily acknowledges the existence of any facts in an issue or facts of the case. It has no concrete pattern as it can be both formal and informal. Formal admission is also known as judicial admission. It is an admission that is being made during a judicial proceeding. Whereas an informal admission is an admission made in the course of day-to-day activities. Formal evidence is entirely admissible in the court of law which means that the court acknowledges such admission and it accepts it. However, with an informal admission, there is a lot of room for reasonable doubt and requires further proof for it to be admissible in a court of law.
There is a very thin line that differentiates a confession from an admission. Even though the Evidence Act does not exclusively point out but admissions are usually used during civil proceedings when on the other hand confessions are used in criminal proceedings.
Admissions are not conclusive whereas if confession is made deliberately and voluntarily then it may be accepted as conclusive of matters so confessed. This means that a conviction can be based on the confession statement itself. Whereas, there is other additional evidence required for a conviction along with the admission.
A confession is always made against the person making it. An admission may be used on behalf of the person making it.
There can be several reasons why a confession is made. It may be sometimes made if the issues and facts of the case have been wrongly framed. This can be usually a result of interrogation and the conclusion observed by law enforcement. A confession can actually help clear any such doubts and grey areas of the criminal act. It helps in learning the truth of the crime and how it happened. It also helps to gather information regarding the crime and aids investigators to arrive at an analytical conclusion. However, sometimes an accused can confess to a crime to avoid harsher sentences.
There can be different types of confession which may differ from case to case. However, broadly confession can be of two types- a judicial confession and an extrajudicial confession. The different types of confessions hold different evidentiary value and they differ based on how, when, and where these confessions are made. A confession if made to oneself is also considered as relevant evidence in a court of law.
A judicial confession is a confession that is made before the court or the magistrate during legal proceedings. It is also known as a formal confession. If a confession is made by the accused which is proving him guilty in the presence of a magistrate or a court of law provided that such confession is “ voluntary” and “ true” then such a confession would be holding a substantive value. However, it is important to note that such a confession would be very difficult to convict a person based on only that. The confession has to be voluntary, genuine, and freely made. The court must also find it true that the accused has indeed committed the crime. There should be no question of any other corroboration arising in the case and only when the court is certain then the court shall record the conviction of the crime to him. It may seem like a judicial confession should be enough for a person to be convicted but it would be really unsafe to convict someone without adequate reason and based only on that confession. Many times, an accused may confess for several reasons in the court of law and one major reason could be out of frustration or especially if they want the questioning to stop. So, a judicial confession alone cannot convict anyone.
Extrajudicial confessions are those statements that are made at any place other than the court of law or before any magistrate. It is also called informal confession. An extrajudicial confession if made to oneself or in private would still qualify as a confession. However, just like judicial confession, the court has to make sure that such confession is made voluntarily and is genuine without any undue pressure. No one should self-incriminate themselves and every confession must be proved to be true. The judicial and extrajudicial confessions hold different evidentiary value and the court will have to test them to establish a fact. Usually, the evidence of an extrajudicial confession is weak and not considered favorable. It requires a lot more reasoning, clarity, and convincing. There is a lot of room for interpretation so the court has to ensure that any statement was not wrongly interpreted by any witness. There is a proper need for cross-examination of the witnesses and the court has to ensure that such a confession was actually made, that it is true, and must also reason why such a confession was made to a particular witness. So, it is fair to say that extrajudicial confession doesn't have much evidentiary value but its value rises when it is supported by other such evidence.
This is a type of confession which is made by a person before the trial but he revokes it afterward. After someone commits a crime, the police investigate the matter and examine the accused along with the witnesses. If the police are of the opinion that the accused is proved to have committed any crime then he submits a report to a magistrate. If the accused is willing to admit the guilt, then the police send him to the magistrate to record his statement. The magistrate once satisfied would have to record the statement which may be proved at the trial. However, at the trial when the accused is questioned if he has committed the crime or not, he can state otherwise and answer in the negative saying that the crime was not committed by him. He may also deny statements recorded by him to the magistrate as well and may say that he was under the undue influence of the police. In this sort of scenario, the confession made to the magistrate before the trial by the accused is known as a retracted confession.
A retracted confession is having a weak evidentiary value unless it can be corroborated with evidence. There have been cases where the courts have convicted someone based only on the retracted confession where they have been of the opinion that the retracted confession was genuine, made voluntarily, and was true. It can be a very unsafe step towards justice if someone was convicted based only on that confession without any corroborative evidence. The investigation process can be a very exhaustive and taxing ordeal and one may never know when someone admits guilt under influence and fear.
When there is more than one accused in the case and one of them admits to the crime in such a way that he will be proved guilty and such a confession is made voluntarily and without any pressure, then the court can also hold all the other accused guilty as well.
A confession to the police cannot be held against that person. This is so because such confession before the police can be a result of the threat, pressure, and sheer fear. There are many cases of torture during police custody as well and a person may be well under fear when he is confessing to a crime. So, such a confession would be quite unreliable.
If there is a secret agent of police who is deputed with the aim of getting a confession from someone then such a confession would hold no value. Any other situation where the confession was made without the presence of police would still qualify as a confession.
Exclusion of confessional statements: If any statement even if made to the policeman falls short of a confession will be admissible in the court of law. For example: if the accused tells the police that he witnessed the murder in question would lead to evidence against him proving that he was present when the murder took place.
Confession in an FIR: The part of the confessional FIR (First Information Report) which does not amount to a confession can be admissible in a court of law. That part of the FIR can also be used against him as evidence. Statements given during an investigation: A statement given to the police confessing to a crime even before he has been established as an accused is irrelevant. Confession made in Police Custody: A confession made in police custody holds no value unless it is a confession made to the magistrate. The word custody does not have to be merely physical. It does not mean that a policeman has to hand-cuff someone and take control of that person physically. Anytime the movement of a person is controlled by a police officer he is deemed to be under custody. For example, A police officer asks & lsquo X' to follow him as he is a leader in a murder case. If X follows him, he is deemed to be in the custody of the police officer.
However, even though the confession made by the accused to the police cannot be used against him, he can rely on those statements in his defense. For example, there is a statement in the FIR that says that the accused stabbed someone. It cannot be used against him to convict him. However, he can rely on those statements to show that he may have taken such steps out of grave fear and provocation.
Any confession that is made under threat or in return for any promise related to the charge could also be irrelevant.
If there is a fact that is discovered as a consequence of information that has been received from the accused, in the custody of a police officer, so much so that that information amounts to a confession or relates to the fact so discovered can be used to prove the accused guilty. So, there should be some distinct elements involved:
1. There must a discovery of fact as a consequence of the information received from the accused
2. The person who gives such information must be the accused.
3. The accused must be in police custody
4. It must be proved by anyone that there has been a fact discovered directly from the information given by the accused
5. The fact that is discovered has to be related to the commission of the crime, hence, must be relevant.
A criminal case is entirely dependent on how you present your evidence. It is very difficult for a person to handle his criminal case alone, competently. A criminal lawyer understands what evidence should be produced and in what manner. A criminal lawyer is an expert and has experience in dealing with criminal matters. He/She will be able to guide you as to how to gather evidence, present it in court and also deal with the overall court matter for you on your behalf. Not hiring a good criminal lawyer could be fatal to your case and may cost you a fortune as well as your life.
4.0 | 2+ user ratings 
Greater Kailash - 1, Delhi
5 years
These guides are not legal advice, nor a substitute for a lawyer
These articles are provided freely as general guides. While we do our best to make sure these guides are helpful, we do not give any guarantee that they are accurate or appropriate to your situation, or take any responsibility for any loss their use might cause you. Do not rely on information provided here without seeking experienced legal advice first. If in doubt, please always consult a lawyer.
