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. admission is statement oral or written which gives inference about the liability of person making admission. confession is statement written or oral which is direct admission of suit.ĥ.
Admission by one of the several defendants in suit is no evidence against other defendants.ĥ. Admissions may be used on behalf of the person making it under the exception of section 21 of evidence act.Ĥ.Confessions made by one or two or more accused jointly tried for the same offence can be taken into consideration against the co-accused (section 30)Ĥ. Confessions always go against the person making itģ. Admissions are not conclusive as to the matters admitted it may operate as an estoppel.ģ. Confession if deliberately and voluntarily made may be accepted as conclusive of the matters confessed.Ģ. Admission usually relates to civil transaction and comprises all statements amounting to admission defined under section 17 and made by person mentioned under section 18, 19 and 20.Ģ. Confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceeding to establish the commission of an offence by him.ġ. Section 17 to 31 deals with admission generally and include Section 24 to 30 which deal with confession as distinguished from admission.ġ. When there is enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the accused person’s statements, the Court may rely on the inculpatory part. However in the case Nishi Kant Jha v State of Biharthe Supreme Court pointed out that there was nothing wrong or relying on a part of the confessional statement and rejecting the rest, and for this purpose, the Court drew support from English authorities. Thus, a statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter or offence, cannot amount to confession. Secondly, that a mixed up statement which even though contains some confessional statement will still lead to acquittal, is no confession. In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab the Supreme Court approved the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case over two scores.įirstly, that the definition if confession is that it must either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a confession”. “ A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. In Pakala Narayan Swami v Emperor Lord Atkin observed Justice Stephen in his Digest of the law of Evidence defines confession as “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.” This section comes under the heading of Admission so it is clear that the confessions are merely one species of admission.
The word “confession” appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. Confession appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.