Confession is a self-harming statement made by an accused acknowledging his guilt. It is the strongest evidence against the maker thereof but all confessions are not equally valuable. The admissibility, evidentiary value and probative force of confessions vary from circumstance to circumstance under which, and from person to person to whom that is made by the accused.

The statutory laws of evidence (the Evidence Act, 1872) and that of criminal procedures (the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898) which were enacted in the colonised India. Union Home Minister on August 11, 2023 introduced three bills namely Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Bill and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, with the aim to overhaul the criminal laws of the country and abolish Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

The bills are referred to parliamentary standing committee to hold deliberations on the bills and it is expected that the committee will table its report by the winter session of the Parliament. In this research paper the Admissibility and Evidentiary Value of Confession will be analysed through the new Bharatiya Sakshya Act.

Introduction
Confessions hold a unique place in legal systems worldwide, often serving as critical pieces of evidence in criminal trials. Their admissibility and evidentiary value are subject to stringent legal scrutiny to ensure fairness and reliability in adjudicating cases. In this introduction, we'll delve into the fundamental principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of confessions in legal proceedings.

A confession typically refers to a statement made by an accused person admitting to involvement in a crime or certain elements of it. While confessions can be powerful evidence, their admissibility hinges on several key factors, including voluntariness, reliability, and compliance with legal procedures. In many jurisdictions, including India, laws and judicial precedents establish guidelines to determine when a confession is admissible and how much weight it carries in court.

The Indian legal system, for instance, relies on statutes such as the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to regulate the admissibility and evidentiary value of confessions. These laws emphasize the importance of voluntariness, prohibiting confessions obtained through coercion, inducement, or promise. Additionally, procedures for recording confessions, such as those outlined in Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, aim to safeguard against involuntary admissions.

While a voluntary confession can be a potent piece of evidence, courts often require corroboration from other sources to validate its reliability. This corroborative evidence serves to strengthen the prosecution's case and provides additional assurance of the accused's guilt.

Moreover, judicial scrutiny plays a crucial role in assessing the admissibility and evidentiary value of confessions. Courts meticulously examine the circumstances surrounding the confession, weighing factors such as the accused's mental state, the presence of any external influences, and the manner in which the confession was obtained.

In conclusion, the admissibility and evidentiary value of confessions are pivotal aspects of criminal trials, shaping the course of justice and ensuring the fair adjudication of cases. Understanding the legal principles and procedures governing confessions is essential for upholding the integrity of the judicial process and safeguarding the rights of both the accused and the state. Throughout this analysis, we will explore these principles in greater detail, examining their application in various legal contexts and the implications for criminal justice systems.

In August, the government introduced a bill in Parliament to replace the 150-yearold Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Part of a set of reforms of general criminal laws, the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill has been presented as an exercise to indigenise the legal landscape of the country from one that was created during colonial rule.

The Sakshya bill retains the structure of the Evidence Act with most provisions unchanged. More importantly, the scheme of legal relevance and conceptual definitions of the categories like "fact" and "evidence" has been left unaltered but for incorporating electronic evidence

Definition of Confession

The term confession has not been defined under the Evidence Act, 1872; the General Clause Act, 1897; the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 or any other statutory laws prevalent in India to date. In the absence of any statutory definition of confession we have to rely on the definitions suggested by the jurists and the definitions given in different judgements to understand the meaning of confession. Confession is a direct acknowledgement of guilt by the accused.

Sir James Fitzjames Stephen who drafted the Evidence Act, 1872 defined confession thus:
"A confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with crime, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime"1 This definition was formerly adopted in various cases by the judges in the Indian sub-continent till 1939. But the Privy Council disapproved this definition in 1939 and held that a statement merely suggesting inference that the maker of the statement has committed a crime cannot be considered as a confession. A confession must in terms admit offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.

The definition of confession given in Narayanswami case has been accepted. An accused must admit his involvement in all the physical and psychological facts that constitute a crime in a confessional statement. Straight J. held that only statements which are direct acknowledgements of guilt should be regarded as confessions and it cannot be construed as including a mere inculpatory admission which falls short of being an admission of guilt.

If an accused makes an exculpatory statement or takes care at every stage to show that he did not take any part in the crime, he cannot be said to have made the confession. Confession must admit in terms of the offence or substantially all facts constituting the offence. Exculpatory statement is not confession. Previously, the view was that if a confessional statement is party true and partly false, the statement should not be taken into consideration but the recent view is that a confessional statement partly true and inculpatory and also partly false and exculpatory may be taken into consideration and conviction may be given on the basis of such statement (Haque J, 2011)

Admissibility of Confession

Privy Council, in case of Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor[1], did not accept this definition. In this case Lord Atkin observed that no statement that contains self-exculpatory matter can amount to a confession. Further, a confession must either admit in terms of the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An offence of a gravely incriminating fact is not in itself a confession.

The decision in Pakala Narayan Swami's case was approved by the SC in the case of Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab[2]. In this case, Palvinder was on trial for murder of her husband along with another, who all the time remained absconding. In her statement to the court, her husband was hobbyist photographer and used to keep handy photo developing material which is quick poison. On this occasion, he was ill and she brought him some medicine and the medicine was kept near the liquid developer and by mistake swallowed the liquid and died.

She got afraid and with the help of the absconder, she dumped the body in the well. The statement, thus, partially admitted guilt and partially showed innocence. Here, the lower courts sorted out the exculpatory part and convicted her on the inculpatory part. However, the SC rejected this approach and held that the rule regarding confession and admission is that they must either be accepted or rejected as whole.

From the above discussion the difference between admission and confession can be drawn up as such that an admission is a statement that may or may not be conclusive evidence of a fact in issue or relevant fact but to be a confession, the admission must conclusively prove the guilt of the maker of the admission. Thus, a statement which may not amount to confession may still be relevant as admission. Only a voluntary and direct acknowledgment of guilt is confession, but when confessions fall short of actual admission of guilt, it may nevertheless be used as evidence under Section 21.

Evidentiary Value of Confession

The confession, if voluntary and credible, is considered to be the best and most conclusive piece of evidence as it is presumed that 'no person will make a false statement incriminating him'. Conviction can be based solely on confession if the court is satisfied with voluntariness and trustworthiness of confession. The level of satisfaction of court must be of high degree. The court must satisfy itself as to willingness on the part of accused making confession because confession may not always be voluntary and true.

Sometimes it may be because of mental aberration, vanity, to escape physical and moral torture etc. which reduces its probative value. Therefore, a legal duty has been cast upon the court to ascertain whether confession made by the accused is voluntary or not.

In Sahoo v State of Uttar Pradesh[3], it was held that in case of confessions courts must apply a double test;

• Whether the confession was perfectly voluntary.
• If so, whether it is true and trustworthy.
• If a confessional statement satisfies both above mentioned conditions, it may be relied upon.

Though, there is no rule of law which says that conviction can't be based upon uncorroborated confession however, as a matter of prudence it is usually considered safe to look at confession in the light of all of the evidence on record. In Muthuswamy v State, 1951[4], the court observed that confession shouldn't be accepted merely because it contains a wealth of details. Unless the main features of the story are shown to be true, it would not be safe, as a matter of prudence, to base a conviction on confession by itself.

On confessions:

Notably, in relation to the provisions pertaining to confession, a significant change has been made with respect to Section 24 of the Evidence Act (which provides that any confession made by an accused person if caused by inducement, threat or promise, is irrelevant). Two new provisos have been included which allow for certain types of confessions to be considered relevant.

As per the first proviso, a confession can become relevant if the inducement, threat, coercion or promise, has in the opinion of the court, been fully removed.

Secondly, a confession if otherwise relevant, does not become irrelevant merely because it was:

1. Made under a promise of secrecy;
2. Or is a consequence of a deception practiced on the accused person for obtaining such confession;
3. Or if the accused person was drunk;
4. Or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions;
5. Or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.

These provisos are likely to require further clarification to ensure the right against self-incrimination is not affected.Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act pertaining confession to a police officer and confession have now been clubbed together, while adding a proviso. As per this new proviso, whenever information is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of police, such information as it relates to the fact discovered, whether it amounts to a confession or not, may be proved. Simply put, by virtue of this provision, information received in custody may be used further for the purpose of investigation or corroboration of other evidence against such information.

Confessions: An Analysis of IEvA & BSA

The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill 2023 introduces a paradigm shift in considering confessions, a critical part of criminal trials, in evidence procedures. This section carefully examines the modifications made to Section 22 of the Bill, which deals with confessions, dissecting the nuanced changes and their potential repercussions on the delicate balance between justice and individual rights.

• Keeping Section 24: A Continuation with Reservations Section 24 of the Evidence Act of 1872 historically stated that a confession acquired via incentive, intimidation, or promise was irrelevant. Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill respects this fundamental concept but adds two provisos, allowing greater flexibility in accepting confessions.
   
• First Proviso: Elimination of Coercion The first proviso is that a confession may be considered relevant again if the court believes that the incentive, threat, compulsion, or promise has been completely removed. This adds a dynamic element to the proceedings, allowing the court to reconsider the admissibility of a confession based on the circumstances surrounding its elicitation. However, the caveat raises problems regarding how the court would decide the extent to which coercive components have been removed, necessitating an explanation.
   
• Second Proviso: Broadening the Scope of Admissibility The second proviso broadens the admissibility standards by declaring that, in some circumstances, a confession, even though otherwise significant, does not become irrelevant. Confessions made under a promise of confidentiality, as a result of deception, while the accused was intoxicated, or in response to questions the accused did not have to answer, fall under this category. Furthermore, the rule protects confessions without being informed of the right to stay silent. While these exceptions broaden admissibility, they raise concerns about the potential erosion of the right against self-incrimination.
   
• Implications for the Right Against Impunity Including these provisos necessitates a closer look at their influence on the fundamental right against self-incrimination. The Bill aims to find a compromise between getting critical evidence and respecting an individual's rights by permitting confessions under specified conditions. However, to avoid unexpected effects and maintain the criminal justice system's integrity, the practical application of these laws necessitates careful judicial interpretation.
   
• Clarification Imperative: Striking a Balance Between Flexibility and Certainty While these adjustments increase the admissibility of confessions, they also raise ambiguity that requires judicial clarification. The court's involvement in establishing the extent to which coercion has been removed and the circumstances under which a confession remains relevant necessitates clarity to avoid unexpected consequences and protect the accused's rights.
   
• Consistency with Constitutional Safeguards To achieve fairness and justice, the Bill must harmonise with constitutional safeguards as it navigates the complex terrain of confessions. This entails harmonising the provisions with established principles of due process and fair trial rights guaranteed in the Constitution, supporting the criminal justice system's overall purpose.

In essence, the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill's change in the consideration of confessions presents a more complex approach to admissibility. The retention of fundamental principles, combined with the addition of caveats, demonstrates an attempt to balance the demands of justice and the protection of individual rights. However, when these changes play out in court, judicial interpretation and explanation will be required to safeguard the integrity of the criminal justice system and its constitutional foundations.

Conclusion
Confession is the most compelling evidence against the person who makes it. Once admitted as evidence, it can result in the conviction of the accused, even in some circumstances where no other evidence is present. The court must exercise prudence when condemning an accused solely on the basis of their confession. The courts in the Indian Subcontinent have established guidelines of prudence and caution to prevent the conviction of an accused individual solely based on their statement, in order to ensure that no innocent person is wrongfully punished.

Through years of experience, these regulations have gained the same level of enforceability as laws. The research findings provide an elucidation of the role of Confessions in contemporary society. The significance of this topic spans from ancient times to the present, highlighting its evolution over the years. The admissibility and probative value of confessions have also been explored. Additionally, the research examines the comparison between Confession in terms of IEvA and the recently enacted BSA.

End-Notes:

1. 26 AIR PC 47
2. AIR 1952 SC 354
3. 1965, 1966 AIR 40
4. AIR 1954 SC 4

Cases Referred

• Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor (1939) 26 AIR PC 47
• Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab AIR 1952 SC 354.
• Sahoo v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1965, 1966 AIR 40
• Muthuswamy v State, 1951, AIR 1954 SC 4

Sites Referred

• https://www.researchgate.net/
• https://sansad.in/
• https://www.thehindu.com/
• https://repository.nls.ac.in/
• https://ssrn.com/
• http://dx.doi.org/
• https://www.taxmann.com/
• https://www.lexology.com/

Article Referred

• South East Asia Journal of Contemporary Business, Economics and Law, Vol. 7, Issue 4 (Aug.) ISSN 2289-1560
• Ambasta, Kunal, "The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023: A New and Unimproved Evidence Act" (2023). Popular Media. 49.
• Negi, Chitranjali, Legal Evolution in India: Transitioning from Colonial Legacies to New Frontiers- An In-depth Analysis of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill in 2023 (December 28, 2023).
• Chadha, Vaibhav (2023) Discussing the discrepancies and errors in the Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023. Live Law.
• Authored by - Faizanur Rahman: Issue - RLR Volume V Issue II