Admissions and Confessions notes — Unit 2

What you say can and will be used against you. This is the essence of Admissions.

⇒Definition (Section 17)

An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, 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.

(Basically: It is a voluntary acknowledgment made by a party of the existence of certain facts which are inconsistent with their claim in the suit).

⇒Admissions vs Confessions

All confessions are admissions, but all admissions are not confessions. 'Admission' is a broader term mostly used in civil proceedings. 'Confession' is a specific type of admission used exclusively in criminal proceedings where a person admits to the guilt of the crime.

Not just the party to the suit, but several other people can make statements that are legally binding on the party as admissions.

• 1. Party to the Proceeding: The plaintiff or defendant themselves.
• 2. Agent: An agent expressly or impliedly authorized by the party (e.g., a lawyer's statement on behalf of the client).
• 3. Suing in Representative Character: A trustee, executor, or guardian.
• 4. Persons with Proprietary/Pecuniary Interest: Joint owners (what one joint owner says about the property can bind the others).
• 5. Predecessors in Title: The person from whom the current party derived their title. (e.g., If A bought a house from B. A statement made by B 5 years ago that "the house boundary stops at the oak tree" is an admission that binds A today).

The general rule of evidence (Section 21) is that admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them, but they cannot be proved by or on behalf of the person who makes them.

⇒Why?

Because human nature dictates that people will lie to help themselves. If you are allowed to prove your own self-serving statements, anyone could fabricate evidence. But if you say something against your own interest, it is highly likely to be true.

(Example: A is accused of forging a deed. A wants to bring a witness to say "A told me yesterday that the deed is genuine". This is a self-serving admission and is NOT allowed. But if A told the witness "I forged that deed", the prosecution CAN use it against A).

To encourage out-of-court settlements in civil disputes, the law provides a protective shield.

⇒Communications 'Without Prejudice'

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.

• The Concept: If A and B are fighting a ₹10 Lakh lawsuit, and A sends a letter saying, "Without prejudice to my rights, I am willing to pay you ₹5 Lakhs to settle this right now." If B rejects it, B CANNOT show this letter to the judge later and say, "Look, A offered 5 Lakhs, which means he admits he was wrong!"
• Purpose: Parties should be free to negotiate settlements without fear that their offers will be used against them if negotiations fail.

The Evidence Act does not define 'Confession'. The Supreme Court (in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor) defined it as a statement made by an accused admitting in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.

A mixed statement (e.g., "I killed him, but it was self-defense") is NOT a confession because it does not admit guilt unconditionally.

⇒Section 24: Confession caused by Inducement, Threat or Promise

A confession made by an accused is irrelevant (inadmissible) 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.

(Example: A police inspector tells the accused, "If you confess, I will get you a lighter sentence." The confession is invalid).

These two sections form the bedrock of protection against police brutality in India.

⇒Section 25: Confession to Police Officer

No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

It is an absolute bar. It doesn't matter if the confession was completely voluntary, recorded on video, or made in front of a priest. If it is made to a police officer, it goes into the trash can legally.

⇒Section 26: Confession in Police Custody

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.

(If the accused is in the lockup and confesses to his friend visiting him, it is still inadmissible because he is in police custody. Only a Magistrate's presence validates it).

Section 27 is a proviso (exception) to Sections 25 and 26. It is one of the most litigated sections in criminal law.

⇒How much of information received from accused may be proved

Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

⇒The Logic

The fear of police torture makes confessions unreliable. BUT, if the torture leads the police to actually find a physical object (like a hidden murder weapon), the physical object cannot lie. The discovery of the object guarantees the truthfulness of that specific part of the statement.

⇒The Split Statement

Imagine an accused in police lockup says: "I killed my wife with a butcher knife, and I buried the knife under the mango tree in my backyard."

The police go to the backyard, dig under the mango tree, and find the blood-stained butcher knife.

• Inadmissible Part: "I killed my wife with a butcher knife..." (This is a confession to police, banned by Sec 25).
• Admissible Part: "...I buried the knife under the mango tree in my backyard." (This part distinctly relates to the fact discovered and is admissible under Sec 27).

While police confessions are banned, Judicial Confessions are highly prized evidence.

⇒The Procedure

• If an accused wants to confess, the police bring him before a Judicial Magistrate.
• The Magistrate MUST warn him that he is not bound to confess, and it will be used against him.
• The Magistrate must give him time to reflect, free from police presence (usually by sending him to Judicial Custody for a day).
• If the Magistrate is satisfied the confession is truly voluntary, they record it. This is admissible.

⇒Retracted Confession

What if the accused confesses to the Magistrate, but during the trial says, "The police forced me to do it!"? This is a retracted confession. As a rule of prudence, courts require corroboration (independent evidence) before convicting someone solely on a retracted confession.

If A and B are tried jointly for a murder, and A confesses: "B and I murdered him together." Can A's confession be used to convict B?

⇒The Rule

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.

⇒Evidentiary Value

The Supreme Court has clarified that a co-accused's confession is a very weak type of evidence. It is not "substantive evidence". It can only be used to 'lend assurance' to other strong evidence against B. You cannot convict B solely based on A's confession.

⇒Summary of Master Concepts

• Admissions (Sec 17): Must generally be used against the maker, not for them.
• Section 23: 'Without prejudice' civil settlement offers are not admissible.
• Confessions to Police (25/26): Absolutely inadmissible due to fear of coercion.
• Section 27 (Discovery): The part of the statement leading to the discovery of a physical object is admissible. The object guarantees the truth of that specific statement.
• Co-Accused Confession (Sec 30): Only applicable in joint trials. Very weak evidence; needs corroboration.

⇒University Exam Tips for this Unit (Premium Advice)

• Section 27 is Guaranteed: You will definitely get a question on this. Memorize the 'Split Statement' example (the butcher knife). Explain clearly why the "I killed my wife" part is struck out, while the "buried under the tree" part is kept.
• Admissions vs Confessions: Create a comparison table. Admissions = Civil + Criminal, broader term, can be made by agents. Confessions = Criminal only, narrower term, made only by accused.
• Section 24 (Inducement): Remember that the threat/promise MUST come from a 'Person in Authority' (Police, Magistrate, Employer). If a random neighbor promises something, Section 24 does not apply.