Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................... 3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................ 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................... 4 1. ADMISSIONS AND CONEFSSIONS: A JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION............................ 6 1.1 Meaning and interpretation of the term admission ............................................................... 6 1.2 Meaning and interpretation of the term confession .............................................................. 7 2. CONSTITUTENTS OF O F ADMISSION AND CONFESSION ............................................. ....... 9 2.1 What amounts to admission? ................................................................................................ 9 2.2 What amounts to confessions? .................................................... ............................................................................................ ........................................ 11 3.1 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS ..................................... 13 4.1 CONCLUSION .................................................... ......................................................................................................... ................................................................... .............. 15
CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
INTRODUCTION Admission and confession are two very important concepts used in law of evidence by lawyers to strengthen their cases in the eyes of the jury. Both admissions and confessions are used as sources of evidence. Section 17 to Section 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deal with admissions and confessions. Though they appear to be similar, there is a narrow line of difference between admissions and confessions. In simple words, admission is when a person acknowledges or admits the facts in a statement. On the other hand when an admission is made by an accused person that he has committed a crime, it is called confession. Confession is the of acknowledging one's involvement in a crime or wrong doing. However , the definition of the term confession does not find place in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. So far, the definition given under section 17 of the Act1 for admission becomes applicable to confession also. On close analysis of Sections 17 to 31, it can be said that statement is the genus admission is the species and confession is the sub-species. This observation regarding admissions and confessions was made in the famous case of Sahoo v. State of U.P2.
Since the term confession is not defined anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is the duty of the courts to interpret the term confession. According to Sir James Stephen, “A confession is an admission made any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting an inference that he committed crime.”3 This definition had significant value in the Indian courts till it was discarded by Justice Starjit who redefined the term confessions and shaped its limits. Justice Starjit was of the opinion that confessions should include only those statements which are direct acknowledgment of guilt.
1
Secrion 17, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Sahoo v. State of U.P, AIR 1966 S.C. 42. 3 Stpehen, J.F. : A Digest of the Law of Evidence 12th Ed. 21. 2
Lord Atkin took a similar stand in the case of Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor and observed that, “A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a confession”.4 The same was upheld in the case of Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and in the case of A. Nagesia v. Stae of Bihar.5 The term admission is already defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore do not need much interpretation by the judiciary. The following chapters of this project will deal with the meaning of the term admissions and confessions, statements that qualify as admissions and statements that qualify as confessions, and the major differences between the terms admissions and confessions.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES In this project, the researcher intends to bring out the true meaning of the term ‘admission’ and ‘confession’ as used in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with the help of case laws and also to portray the narrow line of difference through case laws and judgments. The researcher aims in bringing out those conditions which are to be satisfied for a statement to become an admission and a statement to become a confession are also discussed in detail. This paper aims in highlighting the acid test which distinguishes a confession from an admission.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. What is the meaning attributed to the term confession by the Indian judiciary to the term ‘confession’? 2. When is a statement considered to be an admission and when is it considered to be a confession? 3. What are the major differences between confessions and admissions in accordance With Indian violence Act, 1872? 4
Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47 Nagesia v. Stae of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119
5
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The research methodology adopted to complete this paper is doctrinal. The primary source of research is treaties and conventions. Existing secondary data has been analyzed and no new data has been created. The paper follows majorly inductive reasoning, beginning with specific observations and measures, to detect patterns and regularities, formulating some tentative hypotheses that can be explored, and finally end up developing some general conclusions or theories.
1. ADMISSIONS AND CONEFSSIONS: A JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
1.1 Meaning and interpretation of the term admission Admission in layman’s term is merely a voluntary acknowledgment of facts relevant to the issue. All statements are divided into two, self harming statements and self interest statements. All self harming statements are considered to be admissions though all admissions need not be self harming. It is not necessary that every admission should be against the interest of the person making the admission. The term admission is defined in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act6. According to this Section7, ‘an admission is a statement ,[oral or documentary, or contained in electronic form] which suggest any inference as to facts in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances mentioned in the Act’. Thus according to this Section, any statement which suggest any inference as to facts in issue or relevant facts are considered to be admissions. ‘Facts in issue’ is that fact which is asserted or denied in a judicial proceeding. An admission is a statement of facts which waives or dispenses with the production of evidence by conceding the fact asserted by the opponent is true. It can be said that admission is a statement made by a person in relation to the facts in issue or relevant facts. However not only statements made thus cannot be said to be admissions. Only those statements made under those circumstances as prescribed in Section 18 to 20 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are considered to be admissions and will be admissible as evidence under the Indian Evidence Act.8 Also only the statements made by those persons as mentioned in the Evidence Act, 1872, are admissible as admissions. Admissions are admitted because the conduct of a party to a proceeding, in respect to the matter in dispute, is clearly inconsistent with the truth of his contention. 9 The concept behind this is that nobody would accept or acknowledge a fact that goes against their interest unless it is indeed true. For example, unless ‘A’ stole money from ‘B’, it is not normal for ‘A’ to say that he stole
6
Indian Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872) Section 17, Indian Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872) 8 Supra note 6 9 RATANLAL & DHIRAJLAL, THE LAW OF EVIDENCE, 148, (25th ed. 2014) 7
money from ‘B’. Therefore, an admission becomes an important piece of evidence against a person.10 In the case of Ahmedsaheb v. Sayed Ismail11, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that, admissions of a party in the proceedings be it in the pleadings or oral is the best evidence and does not need any further corroboration. Also, in the case of Thiru Jhon v. Returning Officer 12, the Supreme Court held that, admission is the best piece of evidence against the party making it and, though not conclusive, shifts the onus to the maker based on the principle that what a party himself admits to be true may be reasonably presumed to be true so that until the presumption is rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be free. Whatever the case may be the effect of the admission depends on the circumstances under which it was made. This was held in the case of E.C.T Farming Society case.13 An admission must be clear, specific and unambiguous and in the own words of the person making it and has to be proved so. In the case of H.G Ramachandra Rao v. Master Srikantha14, it was held that in order to be worthy of being received in evidence, considered and place reliance upon, an admission should be a clear cut and accurate statement. Admissions can be used in civil as well as criminal proceedings under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 1.2 Meaning and interpretation of the term confession Confession is not defined anywhere in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, the courts have attributed different meanings to the term confession through various judgments. Confession, basically is an admission made at any time by any person who is charged with a crime. According to Sir James Stephen, “A confession is an admission made any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting an inference that he committed crime.”15
10
Hanumanth Deshmukh, http://hanumant.com/LOE-Unit4-Admission.html, last visited on (16th March, 2016, 20:18(IST)) 11 Ahmedsaheb v. Sayed Ismail, (2012) 8 SCC 516 12 Thiru Jhon v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1724 13 E.C.T Farming Society case, AIR 1974 SC 1121 14
H.G Ramachandra Rao v. Master Srikantha, AIR 1997 Kant 347 Stpehen, J.F. : A Digest of the Law of Evidence 12th Ed. 21.
15
This definition had significant value in the Indian courts till it was discarded by Justice Starjit who redefined the term confessions and shaped its limits. Justice Starjit was of the opinion that confessions should include only those statements which are direct acknowledgment of guilt. Lord Atkin took a similar stand in the case of Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor and observed that, “A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a confession”.16 In order to decide whether a statement is a confession or not, it must be read as a whole. A confession is a statement which either admits in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. This has been held in the case of Dhanapati De v. Emperor 17. Also, a statement which merely suggests an inference that the accused committed a crime does not amount to a confession, as was held in the case of Om Prakash v. State of U.P18. However, an incriminating statement which is not an absolute confession but from which the inference of guilt follows does amount to a confession as in the case of Queen Empress v. Nana.19 A statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter or offence, cannot amount to confession. A statement made in such cases where the accused admitted his complicity in crime merely by stating that he was in the company of the other accused, who was responsible for the death of the deceased will not be considered as a confession to his involvement in crime and therefore is inadmissible in evidence.20 It was held in Queen Empress v. Tribhovandas Manekchand21, that a confession which is inadmissible in a criminal proceeding may be used as an admission in a civil proceeding.22 Thus the court has taken care of the deficiency in the laws and has interpreted the term confession. The definition of the term confession, thus has evolved from the basic definition
16
Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47 Dhanapati De v. Emperor, (1944) 2 Cal 312 18 Om Prakash v. State of U.P. AIR 1960 SC 409 19 Queen Empress v. Nana. (1889) 14 Bom 260, FB 20 Valiyaveetil Ashraf v. State of Kerala, 1994 CrLJ 555 (Ker) 21 Queen Empress v. Tribhovandas Manekchand, (1884) I.L.R. 9 Bom 131 22 Indian Law Premier, http://indialegal.blogspot.in/2008/04/admissions.html, last visited, 17th March, 2016 (12:39(IST)) 17
given by Stephen in his digest and has taken more logical approaches in cases starting from the case of Pakala Narayan Swamy23.
2. CONSTITUTENTS OF ADMISSION AND CONFESSION 2.1 What amounts to admission? As already mentioned, any statement cannot be considered as an admission. In order to be an admission, the statement should be clear, unambiguous, specific and should be in the own words of the person making it. In addition to this, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with aspect of valid persons who can make an admission, validity of admissions made by a third party, and also in what circumstances statements are considered to be admissions and the evidentiary value of the same. In this paper, the above said are considered to be the valid constituents of admissions. Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act24 lays down five classes of people who can make valid admissions. This includes any party to the proceeding, agent authorized by such party, party suing or sued in a representative character making admissions while holding such character. The fourth includes persons who has any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter if the proceeding during the continuance of such interest and lastly, persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject-matter of the suit during the continuance of such interest. According to this section, admissions are those statements made persons who are directly or indirectly a party to a suit. As a result of this, statements made by an agent of a party to the suits are also admissions. Statements made by persons who are suing or being sued in a representative character are admissions, only if those statements were made by the party while being in that representative character. In the case of Roopi Bai v. Mahaveer 25, the court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Jahuri Sah v. Dwaraka Prasad Jhunjhunwala26 and held that when a fact pleaded in a plain is not specifically denied but mere ignorance about its existence is pleaded, it amounts to admissions unless by necessary implication it amounts to denial. Similarly, statements made by persons who have a pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the 23
Supra note 16 Section 18, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) 25 Roopi Bai v. Mahaveer AIR 1994 Raj 133 26 Jahuri Sah v. Dwaraka Prasad Jhunjhunwala AIR 1967 SC 109 24
proceeding and statements made by persons from whom such interest is derived by the parties in suit, are also admissions if they are made while the person making the admission had such an interest. For example, A bought a piece of land from B. Statements made by B at the time when B was the owner of the land, are admissions against A.27 Section 1928 of the Act also says that statement made by persons whose position/liability is to be proved as against any party to the suit are relevant if such a statement would have been relevant between such person and the party to the suit if a suit would have been brought by or against them when the statement was made whilst the person occupies such a position. Also statement made by a person who has been expressly referred to by any party to the suit is admissible under Section 2029 of the Act.30 An admission can be proved as against the person making the same or his agent or representative but such a person is not allowed to prove it on his own behalf that is to say for his own good except when it is of such a nature that the person making it were dead. In such a case the statement would be relevant between third persons under section 32. Also an admission may be proved by or on behalf of a party making it if such a statement consists of a statement of existence of any state of body/mind, relevant or in issue made at about the time when such state of body or mind existed and such a statement is accompanied by conduct. According to section 21(3) an admission may be proved by or on behalf of the person making it if such a statement was relevant otherwise than an admission for example as under Section 34 entries in books of accounts or under section 35 which deals with relevancy of public documents.31 Though oral evidence is admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 section 22 clearly states that oral admissions as to the content of documents are not relevant unless and until the party proposing to present such oral evidences shows that he is entitled to give secondary
27
Supra note 10 Section 19, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) 29 Section 20, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) 30 Aastha, Evidence Act: Confessions and Admissions, 2 nd March, 2015, http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Evidence-Act-Confessions-and-Admissions-6577.asp#.VuuiW_t97IX , th (last visited 18 March, 2016 12:16(IST)) 28
31
Id.
evidence relating to the matter. Another case when such oral admission is admissible when the genuineness of such a document is in question.32 Section 23 of the act lays down the no prejudice clause that is admissions cannot be used to the prejudice of the party. Section 23 pertains to those situations where in the parties enter into negotiations and in that process make certain admissions. The section gives discretion to the court to find out whether the circumstances were such wherein either of the party to the proceeding or both of them intended to exclude the admission to be proved.33
2.2 What amounts to confessions? Sections 24 to 30 deal with confessions under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. According to Section 2434, an admission in order to be considered as a confession should be voluntary. A confession caused by inducement, threat or promise is irrelevant when it comes to a criminal proceeding. The most important part to be satisfied in order to make an admission a confession is that, it should be voluntary. However, a confession as under Section 24 made under the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise is relevant when the impression is removed.35 Any admission regarding commission of an offence or acknowledgment of guilt to a policeman is not admissible as a confession. This is mentioned in Section 2536 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section is inflexible and bars any admission in the nature of a confession from being treated as a confession in the Court if made to a police officer. The basic object behind this law is to prevent the extortion of confessions by police officers who in order to gain credit by securing convictions go to the length of positive torture. Section 2637 of the Indian Evidence Act however expands the scope of admissions that may be treated as confessions. In accordance with this Section, if an admission is in the nature of a confession and is made voluntarily to a police officer in the presence of a magistrate it amounts 32
Supra Note 20 Aastha, Evidence Act: Confessions and Admissions, 2 nd March, 2015, http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Evidence-Act-Confessions-and-Admissions-6577.asp#.VuuiW_t97IX , (last visited 18th March, 2016 12:16(IST)) 34 Section 24, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) 35 Section 28, Inidan Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) 36 Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) 37 Section 26, Indian Evidence Act , 1872(Act 1 of 1872) 33
to a confession and can admitted in Court as a valid confession. The object behind this Section is that, the public interest lies in prosecuting the criminals rather than compromising with them. 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 information (whether it amounts to confession or not) as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. This Section38 is based on the principle that if the confession of the accused is supported by the discovery of a fact it may be presumed to be true and not to have been extracted. This Section comes into operation under two conditions. If and when certain facts are deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from an accused in police custody and if the information relates distinctly to the facts discovered. The broad ground for not admitting confessions made under inducement, threat or promise to a police officer is the danger of admitting false confessions, but the necessity for exclusion disappears in a case provided for by this Section when the truth of the confession is guaranteed by the discovery of facts in consequence of the information given.39 The section seems to be based on the view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and accordingly can be safely allowed to be given in evidence. Normally the section is brought into operation when a person in police custody produces from some place of concealment, some object e.g. a dead body, a weapon or ornaments, said to be connected with the crime of which the informant is accused.40 This Section41 can be seen as an exception to Section 2542 and Section 2643 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. A relevant Section does not become irrelevant just because it was made under the promise of secrecy or in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused or hen the accused was drunk or in answer to questions which the accused need not have answered or in consequence of the accused not receiving a warning that he was not bound to make and that it might be used against him.44
38
Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) Bulaqi v. The Crown, (1928) 9 Lah 671, 675. 40 Pulukari Kottaya v Emperor 41 Supra Note 31 42 Supra Note 29 43 Supra Note 30 44 Section 29, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) 39
In the case of Pati Soura v. State, it was held that self exculpatory statements do not amount to confessions. In the case of a statement containing a self inculpatory matter, (that is in the case of self defense) do not amount to a confession if the self exculpatory part of it, if proved to be true negates the offence that is alleged to be confessed.
3.1 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS
It is a usual statement that all confessions are admissions but all admissions are not confessions. The underlying principle which governs a confession and an admission is the same and that principle is that a statement made by a person against his own interest might be true.45 There is a narrow line of difference between admissions and confessions. Under the English law, admissions are used in both civil and criminal cases while confessions are used only in criminal cases. However, there is no law stating the same in India. As a result the courts have taken the job of differentiating admissions and confessions. The acid test that distinguishes a confession from an admission is that, where a conviction is based on a statement alone, then that statement is an admission which amounts to be a confession. In those cases, where a statement is admitted but conviction is based on that statement alone but on placing reliance on supplementary evidence to support the statement made is admission. This was held in the case of Ram Singh v. State Another 46. The test laid down by the court is that, if the prosecution relies on the statement as being true it is confession and if the statement is relied on because it is false it is admission. 47 In criminal cases a statement by accused, not amounting to confession but giving rise to inference that the accused might have committed the crime is his admission. The Supreme Court in the case of CBI v. C. Shukla, pointed out the difference between admissions and confessions as , “Only voluntary and direct acknowledgement of guilt is a 45
Confessions and its various dimensions, th http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/7860/11/11_chapter%204.pdf , last visited, 17 March, 2016 (18:49(IST)) 46
Ram Singh v. State and another, AIR 1959 All. 518. Shraddha, Confession, Legal Service India, (July 11, 2013), http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/confession-under-indian-evidence-act-1547-1.html , (last seen at 18th March, 2016 (10:12 (IST)) 47
confession, but, if it falls short of actual admission of guilt, it may be used as evidence against the person who made it or his authorized agent, as an admission under section 21.” Now, the basic differences between an admission and confession are as follows:
A confession is a statement made by an accused which can be used against him in a criminal proceeding which he allegedly committed and that which can be used against him to establish the offence. An admission on the other hand is a statement made by a party to the proceeding or by a third party who has interest in the subject matter of the proceedings (as per provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), and he admits a fact in issue or relevant fact. Such an admission is usually seen in civil cases.
A confession is always a self harming statement. That is, it always goes against the person making it. An admission on the other hand need not be a self harming statement.
A confession untainted by any legal disqualification may be accepted as conclusive in itself of the matters confessed as conclusive in itself of the matters confessed as held in Emperor v. Narayan,48 but an admission is no conclusive proof of the matters admitted though it may operate as an estoppel. 49
Where there is a group of accused, the confession of one of them can be used against the all the others provided the requirements under Section 3050 have been met. However in the case of an admission, an admission made by one of the accused cannot be used against the others.
An admission need not be voluntary. But for an admission to become a confession it should be voluntary and not coerced or obtained under undue influence.
An admission is valid and is admissible even if it is made by an agent or even a stranger on behalf of a party but for a confession to be relevant, it must be made by the accused person himself. This was held in the American case of State v. Guie51.
48
Emperor v. Narayan, (1907)32 Bom iii(FS). Supra note 39 50 Section 30, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872) 51 State v. Guie, 56 Mont 485 49
4.1 CONCLUSION
The researcher firmly concludes that, there is a narrow line of difference between admissions and confessions. All confessions are admissions but all admissions are not confessions. Focus has been laid on the statements that amount to admissions and those statements that amount to confessions. Admission is the broader term and an admission is a confession only when the admission is made by a person admitting his own guilt or any act which is an essential part of commission of guilt. It can be concluded that that statement is the genus, admission is the species and confession is the subspecies.
