A confession is induced by the following expression, “Do not run your soul into more sin but tell the truth”. Is this confession relevant?

Question: A confession is induced by the following expression, “Do not run your soul into more sin but tell the truth”. Is this confession relevant? [U.P.A.P.O. 1997]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A confession is induced by the following expression, “Do not run your soul into more sin but tell the truth”. Is this confession relevant?]

Answer

As per section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession will not be admissible if they are not deemed voluntary. A confession is not voluntary if it is made under a threat, promise, admission or consent has been made by a defendant.

Section 24 read with section 28 of the act states that confession caused by inducement (temporal kind – worldly benefit), threat or promise, is irrelevant in criminal proceedings if it is made under the influence of a person-in-authority over the matter and not from the relative or friend of the accused.

If a confession comes within the four corners of Section 24 it is irrelevant and cannot be used against the maker.

To attract the prohibition enacted in Section 24 the following facts must be established:

1. Statement in question must be a confession,
2. Such confession is made by the accused person,
3. It has been made to a person-in-authority, by reason of any inducement, threat, or promise,
4. Such inducement, threat, or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused, and
5. The inducement, threat, or promise must in the opinion of the court be sufficient to give the accused ground, which would appear to him reasonable, for supporting that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him

A statement made by a suspect is meaningless in criminal proceedings if the court finds that the confession is caused by any incitement, threat or pledge to the accused, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the court’s opinion, to give fairgrounds to the accused person for believing that, if he received any advantage or prevented some evil of a temporary nature in connection with the proceedings against him, it would do so.

In the matter of Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan [1963 AIR 1094], it was stated that the person giving a different promise, threatening the accused or inducing him to make confession must be a person in authority. The term ‘person in authority in this section was held to be one who has any authority or power to charge the accused. The person in authority would only mean the police who are in charge of the investigation and the magistrate who will handle the case.

However, in the present case at hand, it is not Inducement when confession is made to a Spiritual advisor under inducement (moral, spiritual & religious – not worldly) for the good of his Soul is admissible.

For instance – i) ‘do not run your soul into more sin but tell the truth’, ii) ‘have you my wrings? Be a good girl and tell the truth’. Such statements if given to any person under authority i.e. any person having authority who can examine, arrest, prosecute or detain an accused person would be irrelevant by virtue of section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X