The Indian Evidence Act's Section 24 has the first instance of the word "confession." It is evident that the confessions are only one type of admission because this section falls under the admission topic. The Act does not define confession. "Confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime," according to Mr. Justice Stephen's definition in his Digest of the Law of Evidence. "A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence," Lord Atkin said in Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor.

First off, confession is defined as either explicitly admitting guilt or basically admitting all the facts that make up the offense. Second, a confused statement is not a confession even if it contains some confessional statements and still results in an acquittal. Therefore, a statement that includes self-exculpatory information that, if accurate, would disprove the incident or offense cannot be considered a confession.

However, the Supreme Court noted in the case of Nishi Kant Jha v. State of Bihar that there was nothing improper about accepting only a portion of the confessional statement and dismissing the remainder. The Court received assistance from English authorities in order to make this point. The Court may rely on the inculpatory portion of the accused person's comments when there is sufficient evidence to reject the exculpatory part.

Confession

• A confession is a statement made by an accused party that is intended to be used against him in a criminal trial to prove that he committed the offense.
• Confessions that are made voluntarily and purposefully may be regarded as conclusive of the subjects they cover.
• Confessions are usually detrimental to the one who makes them.
• A co-accused may be held accountable for confessions made by one, two, or more accused who were jointly prosecuted for the same offense (section 30).
• A confession is an oral or written statement that constitutes an outright admission of guilt.

The acid test which distinguishes a confession from an admission is that where conviction can be based on the statement alone, it is confession and where some supplementary evidence is needed to authorize a conviction, then it is an admission as stated in Ram Singh v. State Another test 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. 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.

• Forms of Confession:
  Confessions can take many different shapes. A confession made to the court will be referred to as judicial confession; a confession made to someone outside the court will be referred to as extra-judicial confession. It could even involve talking to oneself, which could be used as proof if someone else overhears you. For instance, in Sahoo v. State of U.P., the accused-who was charged with killing his daughter-in-law, with whom he had frequent arguments-was observed leaving the house the day of the murder and uttering statements along the lines of, "I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels." The statement was held to be a confession relevant in evidence, for it is not necessary for the relevancy of a confession that it should be communicated to some other person.
   
• Judicial Confession:
  are those that are made in court or before a magistrate following the proper legal procedures. "A plea of guilty on arrangement (made before a court) if made freely by a person in a fit state of mind" is the definition of a judicial confession.

Extra-Judicial Confession
are those that the accused makes outside of a courtroom or before a magistrate. It is not required that the statements have been targeted to a specific person. The event might have happened as a prayer. It might be an admission to a private individual. "A free and voluntary confession of guilt by a person accused of a crime in the course of conversation with persons other than judge or magistrate seized of the charge against himself" is the definition of an extra-judicial confession. Following the committing of a crime, a man may write a letter to a friend or relative expressing his regret for the situation.

This could be considered a confession. If an extrajudicial confession meets the credibility test, it may be accepted and used as the foundation for a conviction. Extrajudicial confessions are typically made in front of private individuals, including judges acting in their own capacities. It also includes a magistrate who is not permitted by Cr.P.C. section 164 to record confessions or a magistrate who is permitted by section 164 but receives the confession at a time when section 164 is not applicable.

Evidentiary Value of Confession
Value of judicial confession- a case where there is no proof of corpus delicti must be distinguished from another where that is proved. In the absence of the corpus delicti a confession alone may not suffice to justify conviction.

A confessional statement made by the accused before a magistrate is a good evidence and accused be convicted on the basis of it. A confession can obviously be used against the maker of it and is in itself sufficient to support his conviction. Rajasthan High Court has also held that the confession of an accused person is substantive evidence and a conviction can be based solely on a confession.

The prosecution would not need to take any further action to gain a conviction if it were determined that the confession was made and that it was sincere, free, and voluntary. In the event that the court determines that the accused is indeed guilty of the crime, it will just need to register the conviction and impose a sentence on the accused. In this instance, corroboration is not a question. Generally speaking, relying solely on the confession of the suspected murder to support a murder conviction would not be very safe, either in terms of legality or common sense.

Since the Supreme Court made this observation, it cannot be considered a sound statute when it comes to judicial confessions.

According to established law, a confession can only serve as the basis for a conviction if it can be shown to be genuine and voluntary. If confirmation is required, it suffices if the confession's general tendency is supported by some data that agrees with its contents. Overall confirmation is sufficient.

Value of extrajudicial confessions: Although extrajudicial confessions are rarely regarded favorably, this does not imply that a confession from someone who has no basis to lie and who is making the confession in circumstances that corroborate his claims shouldn't be taken seriously.

There was a claim in State of Karnataka v. A.B. Nag Raj that the dead girl's father and stepmother had murdered her in the national park. The accused made the purported extrajudicial confession while being held in the forest office. Neither the police report nor any of the witnesses who testified there mentioned the aforementioned confession. It is not advisable to rely on this extrajudicial confession.

Conclusion
The Evidence Act needs to be changed in order to restore the Indian people's confidence in the legal system and guarantee that they will receive prompt justice for any wrongs committed against them. According to the draft Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2003's statement of objects and reasons, criminal trials are handled slowly in the legal system, and oftentimes trials don't start for three to five years after the accused has been placed under judicial custody. Instead, it is important to amend some sections of the Criminal Law to shorten the time it takes for the average individual to receive justice.

Written By: Akanksha