CONFESSIONS UNDER THE BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023: JUDICIAL AND EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS AND THE IMPACT OF ACCUSED RIGHTS

(This article is written by Moumita Mondal, Kingston Law College, BBA LL.B., 3^rd Year during her internship at LeDroit India.)

SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE 

This article will cover the following aspects:

• Meaning and nature of confession and its difference from a mere incriminating statement or admission.
• Statutory framework under Sections 22–25 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – involuntary confessions, police confessions, custodial confessions, confessions affecting co-accused, and admissions.
• Judicial confessions – safeguards applicable when a confession is recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
• Extra-judicial confessions – evidentiary value and judicial tests to determine its voluntariness, truthfulness and reliability.
• Impact of accused rights – constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
• Judicial interpretation of confessions – relevant landmark decisions concerning the meaning of confession, police confessions, discovery of facts, co-accused confessions and extra-judicial confessions.
• Practical application of the law – illustration showing the difference between inadmissible custodial confession and information leading to discovery.

ABSTRACT 

Confession occupies an important place in the law of criminal evidence, but its use is subject to strict statutory and constitutional safeguards. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) regulates important aspects of confessional evidence through Sections 22–25. These provisions deal with confessions caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, confessions made to police officers, confessions made while in police custody, and the limited consideration of a confession against a co-accused jointly tried. The distinction between judicial and extra-judicial confessions is also of significance. A judicial confession recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is subject to safeguards to ensure its voluntariness, whereas an extra-judicial confession requires detailed judicial assessment of its reliability and surrounding circumstances. The constitutional guarantee under Article 20(3) provides further protection to accused against compelled self-incrimination. This article examines these principles with reference to leading judicial decisions and practical illustrations.

KEYWORDS 

Confession; Judicial Confession; Extra-Judicial Confession; Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; Self-Incrimination; Accused Rights

SYNOPSIS 

The article begins with an explanation of the meaning and nature of confession, and its distinction from a statement containing only an incriminating circumstance. It then examines Sections 22–25 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and explains the restrictions placed on involuntary, police and custodial confessions. The article distinguishes between judicial and extra-judicial confessions and examines the safeguards applicable to each. The constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination given by Article 20(3) is then examined along with Section 183 of the BNSS. Finally, relevant judicial decisions are analysed to understand the evidentiary treatment of confessions and their practical application.

1. INTRODUCTION

A confession is an important piece of evidence in criminal proceedings since it contains an admission by an accused of having committed an offence. However, criminal law does not consider every incriminating statement made by an accused to be a confession. The circumstances in which the statement was made, the nature of the statement and the manner in which it was obtained are relevant in determining its admissibility and evidentiary value.

The law regulating confessions seeks to strike a balance between the proper use of voluntary evidence and the protection of an accused from compelled or unreliable statements. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 continues this principle through specific provisions concerning confessional statements.

The judicial interpretation of confession has evolved considerably through case law. In Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, AIR 1939 PC 47, the Privy Council indicated that a confession either admits the offence in terms or substantially admits the facts constituting the offence. A statement that merely contains an incriminating fact does not necessarily constitute a confession.

The law therefore seeks to balance between the evidentiary value of a confession and protection of the one accused. The fact that a confession takes place must be analyzed with regards to its voluntariness, the circumstances under which it occurred and the safeguarding rules applicable to the recording and use of the statement. The distinction between judicial and extra judicial confessions is also of importance due to the different standards of reliability applicable to them. These rules therefore ensure that confessional evidence is evaluated as part of the process in which it was generated.

2. MEANING AND NATURE OF CONFESSION 

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 does not contain a comprehensive definition of the word ‘confession’. Its meaning has continued to evolve through judicial interpretation.

A confession is generally understood to be an admission by an accused of guilt, either expressly or by substantially admitting the facts constituting the offence. This distinguishes a confession from an ordinary admission or a statement that merely places an accused in a suspicious or incriminating situation.

In Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, the Court distinguished between a confession and a statement containing only an incriminating circumstance. This distinction remains of significance since the statutory restrictions applicable to confessions cannot automatically be extended to every statement made by an accused.

The Supreme Court examined the relationship between interrogation, incriminating statements and protection against self-incrimination in Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, (1978) 2 SCC 424.

— The meaning and scope of confession can further be understood by examining the following aspects:

1. Confession should relate to the offence or substantially admitting the facts which constitute the offence.

2. Mere admission of an incriminating circumstance is not necessarily confession.

3. Now explain that the Section 22-25 applies to the confessional evidence as it comes within the scope of the said section.

4. Briefly explain why courts go by the contents of the statement and not on the form.

3. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK UNDER SECTIONS 22–25 OF THE BSA

The statutory framework embodies a graduated approach towards the treatment of confessional evidence. The law does not provide for a uniform treatment for all statements made by an accused. The surrounding circumstances, the person before whom it was made and the presence of coercive circumstances are all relevant to the evidentiary treatment of the statement. The provision further recognizes a limited distinction between an inadmissible confession and information which subsequently leads to the discovery of a relevant fact. Thus, the statutory scheme seeks to exclude the use of unreliable or impermissibly obtained confessions while at the same time recognizing the limited evidentiary value accorded by law.

1. Section 22: Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise— 

Section 22 provides that a confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if it appears to have been caused by an inducement, threat, coercion or promise relating to the charge and proceeding from a person in authority.

The provision is based on the principle that a confession must be voluntary. A confession obtained by improper pressure cannot be used in the same manner as a statement freely made by an accused.

The provision thus acts as an important safeguard against the use of confessional evidence obtained under coercive circumstances.

2. Section 23: Confession to a police officer and custodial confession—

Section 23 contains important restrictions on confessions made to police officers and confessions made while a person is in police custody.

A confession made to a police officer cannot ordinarily be proved against the accused. Similarly, a confession made by a person while in police custody cannot ordinarily be proved unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

However, the provision contains a discovery-related exception. If information supplied by an accused in police custody distinctly relates to a fact discovered as a consequence of the information, the relevant portion may be proved.

The principle was classically explained in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, where the Court clarified the limited scope of information distinctly relating to the fact discovered.

In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119, the Supreme Court also examined the exclusion of confessional portions of a statement made to the police and the limited application of the discovery principle.

3. Section 24: Confession affecting the maker and co-accused—

Section 24 deals with the situation where a confession made by one accused is sought to be used against another person who is being jointly tried for the same offence.

The provision permits the Court to, in the circumstances specified by law, take such confession into consideration against the co-accused. However, a confession made by one accused does not automatically become independent substantive evidence against another accused.

The evidentiary position of a co-accused’s confession has thus been examined with caution by courts. The surrounding evidence and the circumstances of the case are of significance.

4. Section 25: Admissions not conclusive proof—

Section 25 provides that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, yet may operate as estoppel in appropriate circumstances.

It is important to note that Section 25 deals with admissions generally and does not create a separate rule explicitly dealing with the admissibility of confessions. Its inclusion in the statutory sequence demonstrates the wider evidentiary distinction between an admission and conclusive proof.

4. JUDICIAL AND EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSIONS 
   1. Judicial Confession—

A judicial confession is generally a confession made before a Court or recorded by a Magistrate in accordance with law.

Section 183 of the BNSS contains safeguards relating to the recording of confessions by a Magistrate. Before recording a confession, the Magistrate must explain to the person that he or she is not bound to make one and that the confession made, if any, may be used as evidence.

The Magistrate must also satisfy himself or herself that the confession is being made voluntarily. These safeguards are of significance since they seek to ensure the voluntariness of the confession.

The significance of proper safeguards to record a confession can be observed from judicial decisions such as Subramania Goundan v. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 66.

Judicial confession—

– Magistrate must ensure that confession is voluntary;

– accused must understand that he/she is not bound to confess;

– procedural safeguards protect against compelled statements;

– proper recording is important for reliability.

2. Extra-Judicial Confession—

An extra-judicial confession is a confession made outside a formal judicial proceeding, for example, before a friend, relative or another private individual.

An extra-judicial confession is not automatically inadmissible merely because it was not made before a Magistrate. However, courts generally examine such evidence with care since its reliability depends heavily upon the circumstances in which the statement was allegedly made and the credibility of the person who claims to have heard.

In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180, the Supreme Court examined the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession and emphasised the importance of voluntariness, truthfulness and credibility of the witness.

Similarly, in Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2012) 6 SCC 403, the Supreme Court laid down important principles concerning extra-judicial confessions. The Court emphasised that the confession should be voluntary and truthful, its words should be clear and unambiguous and the statement should inspire confidence.

Thus, an extra-judicial confession is evaluated on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Extra-judicial confession—

– no fixed rule that every extra-judicial confession is unreliable;

– courts examine witness credibility;

– exact words, circumstances, voluntariness and consistency matter;

– absence of corroboration can become relevant depending on facts.

5. CONFESSION AND THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED 

The law relating to confession is closely connected with the rights of an accused.

Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides:

‘No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.’

The provision embodies the constitutional protection against compelled self-incrimination.

In Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, the Supreme Court examined the scope of the right against self-incrimination and recognised its significance during questioning and investigation.

The question was further examined in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263, where the Supreme Court considered involuntary techniques for obtaining information and discussed the relationship between personal autonomy, testimonial compulsion and Article 20(3).

These principles are relevant to confession law since a confession obtained through compulsion raises significantly different concerns from a statement made voluntarily by an accused.

6. JUDICIAL APPROACH TO EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION 

Extra-judicial confession is generally subjected to careful judicial scrutiny.

The Court may examine:

• Whether the confession was voluntary;
• Whether the statement is truthful and reliable;
• Whether the words used clearly amount to a confession;
• Whether the person claiming to have heard the confession is credible;
• Whether the circumstances provide a reasonable explanation for the accused making such a statement;
• Whether the confession is consistent with other evidence on record; and
• Whether corroborative circumstances support its reliability.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram and Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu illustrate that an extra-judicial confession is not rejected merely because it is extra-judicial, but its evidentiary value depends upon the reliability of the evidence and the circumstances in which it was made.

— Courts generally assess the totality of circumstances, including:

– voluntariness;

– credibility of the witness;

– clarity of the statement;

– consistency with surrounding evidence;

– circumstances in which the confession was allegedly made.

7. PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION 

Suppose A is accused of murdering B.

During police custody, A allegedly tells a police officer:

“I killed B and hid the knife under the floor of my house.”

The confessional portion of the statement cannot ordinarily be proved against A merely because it was made to the police.

However, suppose A’s information leads the police to a particular place where the knife is discovered. The portion of the information that distinctly relates to the fact discovered may become admissible under the discovery proviso.

This illustrates the distinction between the prohibition of a police confession and the limited admissibility of information leading to discovery as explained in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor.

Now, consider a different situation. A voluntarily tells an independent person that A committed the murder. This may constitute an extra-judicial confession. The Court would then examine the witness’s credibility, the voluntariness and clarity of the statement, surrounding circumstances and other evidence before assessing its evidentiary value.

The illustration further shows that the legal treatment of a statement depends on the circumstances which surround it. A confession made directly to a police officer cannot be treated in the same way as information which independently leads to the discovery of a fact. Similarly, a voluntary statement made before an independent person requires evaluation of the credibility of the witness and his surrounding circumstances. The evidentiary value must therefore be determined according to the applicable statutory safeguards.

8. CONCLUSION 

Sections 22–25 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 establish important safeguards governing confessional and related evidentiary statements. Section 22 focuses on voluntariness by excluding confessions caused by improper inducement, threat, coercion or promise. Section 23 restricts the use of police and custodial confessions while preserving a limited discovery principle. Section 24 deals with the consideration of a confession against a co-accused jointly tried, while Section 25 clarifies the evidentiary position of admissions.

Judicial confessions recorded by a Magistrate are subject to procedural safeguards under Section 183 of the BNSS whereas extra-judicial confessions require careful review of their reliability, voluntariness and circumstances.

The decisions in Pakala Narayana Swami, Pulukuri Kottaya, Aghnoo Nagesia, Nandini Satpathy, Selvi, Raja Ram and Sahadevan demonstrate the ongoing judicial emphasis on reliable evidence and protection against compelled self-incrimination. Thus, the law seeks to ensure that evidentiary value of a confession is determined not only on its incriminating content but also on the manner in which it was made and the safeguards surrounding its use.

Ultimately the evidentiary value of a confession will be dependent on both its content and circumstances. The statutory and judicial safeguards therefore ensure that relevant confessional evidence will be taken into consideration whilst preventing the accused from unreliable or coercive testimony. The law therefore puts emphasis on voluntariness, reliability, procedural protection and constitutional protection. By putting these safeguards in place courts will be able to differentiate between legally admissible confessions and those given due to inappropriate pressure or circumstances affecting reliability.