INTRODUCTION
1) Admissions {section 17-23}
2) Confessions {section 24-31}
SCOPE
CASE-LAWS- In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab[3] the Supreme Court has approved the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami[4] case over two scores.
“Firstly, that the definition, if confession is that it must “either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts which constitute such offence”. Secondly, if a mixed up statement which even though contains some confessional statement then also it will still result into acquittal, and hence, is no confession. Thus, “a statement that contains self-exculpatory subject which if true, would negate the offence or matter, cannot amount to confession.”
SC of India also appears to have been influenced by the developments in English law. Its decision in the case Nishi Kant Jha v State of Bihar[5] the Supreme Court pointed out that there was nothing wrong or relying on a part of the confessional statement and rejecting the remaining part, and for this purpose, the Court had drawn support from English authorities[6]. When there has enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the statement given by the accused person, the Court may rely on the inculpatory part.
RATIONALE BEHIND CONFESSION
Confession has another interesting idea , when someone has confess something, the doubt arises in other’s mind that why he/she is confessing?. Either he/she felt his guilt or has so much pressure to confess. So confession is a kind of evidence which has possibility of being used or abused at the same point of time. This is the reason when we start reading confession, we have to keep in mind that it is not a ordinary piece of evidence. Here an accused is confessing something to declare himself guilty.
COMPARISON WITH THE LAWS OF U.S.(Miranda rights)
In Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the court ruled that the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents prosecutors form using a person’s statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person has been informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning, and of the right against self – incrimination before police questioning by the police officer, and that defendant has not only understood these rights, but also voluntarily waived them.
Miranda was regarded by many as a revolutionary change in criminal law of America, since the Fifth Amendment was traditionally understood only to protect Americans against formal types of compulsion to confess, such as threats of contempt of court. It had a very significant impact on the law enforcement in the USA, by making what has become to be called as the “ Miranda Warning” the part of routine police procedure to ensure that suspects must be informed of their rights.
The “ Miranda Warning ” ( often shortened to “Mirnada” or “Mirandizing” a suspect ) is the name of the formal warning that is required to be given by the law enforcement in the United States to criminal suspects in the police custody ( or in a custodial position ) before they have been interrogated, in accordance with the ‘Miranda ruling’. The purpose behind such warning is to ensure that the accused were aware of, and reminded of these rights before questioning or the actions which are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.
[1]Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
[2]Criminal Procedure code, 1973.
[3] AIR 1952 SC 354: 1953 SCR 94: 1952 SCJ 545: 1953 Cr LJ 154.
[4] AIR 1939 PC 47 (52): 40 Cr LJ 364: 66 IA 66
[5] AIR 1959 S.C.R. 1033.
[6] Taylor, LAW OF EVIDENCE, (11th ed., 1910), Roscoe’s LAW OF EVIDENCE (16th ed. 1952). Archbold, PLEADING EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE IN CRIMINAL CASES (86th ed. 1966).