DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN JUDICIAL AND EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS

Abstract

According to the Indian Evidence Act, a confession is a statement made by an accused person that implies they committed the crime. Because they are improvements of admission, confessions are different from admissions. There are two kinds of admission: judicial admission during a court trial and extrajudicial admission of facts made during routine activity. Judicial or extrajudicial admissions have a substantially higher probative value and are completely acceptable by the court under Section 58. Confessions vary depending on the circumstances of the case. The Act only addresses the situations in which a confession might be considered unimportant. According to Section 24, a confession provided by an accused individual under duress, threat, or promise from a higher authority is null and void.

A confession is a statement made by an accused person who is connected to a crime and implies that they committed a crime; however, the Indian Evidence Act does not define the term. Although the Act does not distinguish between admission and confession, there is a thin line separating the two. Confessions are distinct because they are an improvement on admission. Both judicial and extrajudicial admission are possible; judicial admission occurs during a court trial, while extrajudicial admission involves facts discovered during routine daily operations. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, contains the terms “admissions” and “confessions” under chapter II. However, there is a slight distinction between the two terms and they have different meanings. The role of admissions and confessions plays a significant part in criminal trials since it has the power to change the course of the case and facilitate the efforts of the party attempting to establish the accused’s guilt. There are various types of admissions. Extrajudicial and informal confessions are the confessions that will be discussed in this essay.

Keywords

Judicial and Extra-Judicial, Confessions, Evidence Act, Extra-Judicial admissions.

Introduction

Confessions from the accused are the strongest pieces of evidence in a case. The confession’s basic application requires its accuracy and truthfulness. A profound sense of guilt is the cause of it. Trial verdicts may be based on confessions. The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 does not define confessions directly, although they do fall under the category of admission, where the accused admits his guilt. Conviction should not be based solely on an accused person’s confession; it should be backed up by additional evidence. But confessions can also result in abuse of the individual because of their great probative value. According to Sections 24 through 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, “confession” counts. Clause 164, 281, and 463 of the Criminal Procedure Code address confessions.

Meaning of Confession and Admission:

The term “confession” first appears in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. Given that this section is under the admission title, confessions are only one kind of admission. Confession is not defined under the Act. In his Digest of the Law of Evidence, Mr. Justice Stephen defines confession as “an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.” “Admission” is defined by the Evidence Act as “when any person voluntarily acknowledges the existence of any facts in issue or facts.” Like how we discovered that the Evidence Act falls short in defining confession, the Indian Evidence Act has done nothing to sufficiently define “admission” in a wide sense. Any statement, whether made orally, in writing, or electronically, that has enough probative value to suggest or infer any pertinent or factual facts is considered an admission under Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act.

There is no precise definition of confession in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. The term “confession” is first used in chapter II, section 24, under the heading “Admission.” Consequently, we can infer that confession is a type of admission as well. However, the What kind of admission qualifies as confession is the question. The famous Mr. Justice Stephen defined confession as “an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime” in his book “Digest of the Law of Evidence.” Therefore, by this definition, any statement made by the accused that satisfies either of the two requirements constitutes a confession.

1. If he admits to committing the offense which he is charged.

2. If he makes a statement in which he does not explicitly implicate himself, it can be inferred that he has committed the crime in question. It was Lord Atkin’s observation in the history

Pakala Narayana Swamy v. Emperor case

According to this, “a confession must either admit the offense in terms or at least substantially the facts which constitute the offense.” Any statement that does not fit into this category will not qualify as a confession. English text writers distinguish between two types of confession: formal (judicial) and informal (extrajudicial). Confessions made in front of a magistrate who is authorized to record them in accordance with the protocols outlined in the Evidence Act and the CrPC are known as judicial confessions.

Forms of Confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The form of confessions might vary greatly. Confessions made in front of the court are known as judicial confessions; confessions made to someone outside of the court are known as extra-judicial confessions. Even private discussions that might be used as evidence if they are overheard by another person could be included. On the day of the murder, the accused in Sahoo v. State of U.P., for example, was seen leaving the house and saying, “I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels.” The accused was accused of killing his daughter-in-law, with whom he was forever at odds. The declaration was regarded as relevant evidence because a confession does not always have to be disclosed to another person to be confession.

Judicial Confession under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

In the appropriate course of legal proceedings, these are the ones that are made in court or before a magistrate. According to the definition, a judicial confession is “a freely given admission of guilt on arrangement (made before a court) by a person in a fit state of mind.”

Extra-Judicial Confession under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Are declarations the accused makes before a magistrate or outside of court. The statements do not have to be directed at a particular individual. It may have been a prayer of some sort. It can be a personal admission. Extrajudicial confessions occur when an accused person freely and voluntarily confesses to the crime while speaking with a person who is not a judge or magistrate and who is aware of the allegation against him.

After a crime is committed, a man may write a letter to a friend or family member to vent his sorrow. Perhaps this is a confession. If the credibility criterion is met by an extrajudicial confession, a conviction may follow. Usually, confessions made outside of court are made in front of private parties, such as judges acting in their separate roles. It also protects a magistrate who received a confession at a period when section 164 of the Cr.P.C. was not relevant, or who is authorized by section 164 but is not permitted to record confessions.

Difference Between Judicial and Extra-Judicial Confession

Judicial confessions are those given to a judicial magistrate in accordance with section 164 of the Cr.P.C., or in front of the court during a trial or committal procedure whereas, Extrajudicial confessions are ones given to anyone who is not legally permitted to receive confessions. It might be made to the police or to anybody else when they are looking into an offense.
To demonstrate judicial confession, the individual who receives a judicial confession does not have to be called as a witness whereas, proving extrajudicial confessions involves calling the individual who made the confession as a witness.
If a judicial confession seems genuine and voluntary to the court, it may be used as evidence of guilt against the accused whereas, Extrajudicial confessions must be backed up by additional supporting evidence to be trusted.
A judicial confession may serve as the basis for a conviction whereas, Convictions based on extrajudicial confessions are dangerous.
If the court determines that a judicial confession is sincere and voluntary, it may be utilized as evidence of guilt against the accused whereas, Extrajudicial confessions must be backed up by further supporting evidence to be trusted.

Voluntary and Non-Voluntary Confession

Confessions made by accused individuals can be classified as either voluntary or non-voluntary. A confession given by an accused individual to a police officer while they are in their custody is considered their confession under Sections 25 and 26; it is never relevant and cannot be verified. Extrajudicial confessions and confessions made by the accused to a magistrate sent by the police to carry out the investigation are only acceptable if they are made voluntarily. If the court finds that a confession was made as a result of an inducement, threat, or promise related to the change against the accused person proceeding from a person in authority and that the accused person believes there are sufficient grounds to believe that by making the confession, he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him, then the confession will not be relevant and cannot be proven against the person who made it.

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act states that a confession made by an accused person is not relevant in a criminal case if the court finds that the confession was made in response to an inducement, threat, or promise related to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority, and sufficient, in the court’s opinion, to give the accused person grounds that would seem reasonable to him for supporting the idea that by making the confession, he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of temporal nature in relation to the proceeding against him.

Judicial Pronouncement

Pakala Narayan Swami vs. Emperor^{^[1]}:

A confession must either acknowledge the offense or, at the very least, essentially all the circumstances that make up the offense. An acknowledgment of a highly incriminating fact—even one that is clearly incriminating—does not constitute a confession in and of itself.

Nagindas Ramdas vs. Dalpatram Ichharam^{^[2]}:

According to the Supreme Court of India, admissions are normally true and devoid of any ambiguity, and by admitting specific facts, they would be regarded as the best evidence for establishing any relevant fact or fact in dispute. Conversely, the informal admissions made during daily activities only serve to bring the facts to light by an admission from either party, either orally or in writing.

Sahoo vs. State of U.P^{^[3]}.:

Several neighbours heard the accused yell, “I have finished her,” after he had killed his daughter-in-law, who had recently moved into her husband’s new home. The court noted that the accused’s utterances in this case should be interpreted as confessions and will be viewed as confessionary in nature.

State of Punjab vs. Bhagwan Singh^{^[4]}:

In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that an extrajudicial confession only gains value if it is unmistakably consistent and persuasive given the outcome of the case; otherwise, the accused cannot be held accountable for the conviction based alone on his confession.

Balwinder Singh vs. State^{^[5]}:

In resolving the case, the Supreme Court stated that in the event of an extrajudicial confession, the court must determine the credibility of the confessional party and test all of his statements to determine whether or not the confessional party is trustworthy; if not, the statements cannot be used to draw any conclusions that would establish the accused’s guilt at all.

Baburao Bajirao Patil vs. State of Maharashtra^{^[6]}:

To administer complete justice to the conclusion of guilt of the accused,” the court explained before deciding the case. This principle was explained by the court when it was making its decision.

CBI vs. V.C. Shukla^{^[7]}:

The Supreme Court has abolished the distinction between confession and admission, stating that the former refers to the accused’s voluntary and unwavering recognition of guilt, while the latter may be used as evidence against him. However, admissions made by the admitted party may not be considered under the premise of Section 4, which is conclusive proof of admitted facts; instead, the admitted item or facts may only be regarded as substantive or probative evidence of admission.

Pyare Lal vs. State of Rajasthan:

The Supreme Court ruled in this case that a retracted confession has sufficient merit to support any other legal basis for a conviction, provided the Court is convinced that the confession was made voluntarily and truthfully. The Court must attest, however, that guilt cannot be based only on such confessions until and unless they are verified.

Pancho vs. State of Haryana:

Determined that the co-accused’s confessions are not a substantial piece of evidence and have little evidentiary significance. So, the co-accused’s confession can only be used to support the finding reached by other probative evidence.

Pandu Rang Kllu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra:

According to the ruling in the case, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was passed to lift and remove the ban imposed by Sections 25 and 26 of the Act. This means that while Sections 25 and 26 of the Act completely forbid the admission of any confessions made to the police or while in police custody, Section 27 permits the admission of statements made by an accused person, including police officers. The Supreme Court explained that the purpose of this provision was to allow for the further discovery of facts that could aid the court in proving other facts pertaining to the case.

Conclusion

There has been crucial development regarding confessions in criminal law. It falls within the Evidence Act’s admission provisions. Confessions are regarded as adequate proof of the accused’s guilt if they are truthful and allowed in court. The majority of the confession’s components are included within Sections 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act, as explained in this document. The elimination of temptation and threat makes the confessions permissible. This shields the accused from police abuse because confessions made while in police custody are not considered. In conclusion, extrajudicial confessions need to be corroborated in order to be admitted in court, but judicial confessions are seen as more trustworthy and have greater weight as evidence.

Extrajudicial confessions are typically not taken well, but that does not mean they cannot be trusted if they come from someone who has no motive to lie and the circumstances surrounding their making corroborate their claims. The extrajudicial Evidence is a weak piece of evidence that needs to be interpreted very carefully. It can be trusted when it is coherent, consistent, clear, and unambiguous. It should be determined if it is based on unfair or incidental assumptions. The validity of the witness to whom it was given determines its value. However, extrajudicial confessions frequently run the risk of error because the witness making the confession was misinformed. This presents yet another risk in that the prosecution can easily reach any witness who would take a deposition because there is no record and no sanction behind it. Accordingly, extrajudicial confessions ought to be given careful consideration.

References

Sparsh Mali, a fourth-year student, 10th July (2019), Introduction to the confessions, 2-3.
25th May (2021), confessions and judicial confessions of Indian Evidence Act ,1872, 1-4.
29th December (2019), difference between judicial and extra-judicial confessions.
Dr. Assad Malik, April (2021), difference between judicial and extra-judicial confessions, 6.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
https://www.scribd.com/document/540417761/421683474-extra-judicial-confession-law-of-evidence-FD
https://blog.ipleaders.in/confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act/
https://lawbhoomi.com/confessions-under-the-indian-evidence-act-1872/
https://brainly.in/question/14367372
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/extra-judicial-confession-cant-be-strong-evidence-if-not-supported-by-other-evidence-on-record-supreme-court-250178

^[1] Pakala Narayana Swami vs Emperor on 19 January, 1939

^[2] Nagindas Ramdas vs Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijram And Ors on 30 November, 1973

^[3] Sahoo vs State Of U.P on 16 February, 1965, AIR 40, 1965 SCR (3) 86, AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 40

^[4] Bhagwan Singh vs The State of Punjab on 30 April 1952, AIR 214, 1952 SCR 812, AIR 1952 SUPREME COURT 214

^[5] Balwinder Singh vs State of Punjab and Others on 7 March 2024

^[6] Baburao Bajirao Patil vs State of Maharashtra on 19 February 1971

^[7] Central Bureau of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March 1998, AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 1406, 1998 AIR SCW 1298, 1998

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.