 And the judgments were of wide spectrum and the participants have already been on the beyond law CLC. They know that the honorable judge had been kind enough to deliver one of his sessions on a platform, which one Googles on the YouTube channel. So, various aspects that he delivers during his sessions, not only on beyond law CLC, either as it may, on whatever platform it is, we will see on the YouTube channels they are widely received. And since his sessions constitutes the minutest details to the detailed explanations, so we thought that confessions constitutes a major part in a criminal trial. And what are the aspects of criminal trial as to whether a conspiracy or anything beyond, and what are the effects of confessions? We request his Honorable Mr. Justice S. Nagamattu, who is a senior advocate and now practicing primary in the Supreme Court, to remove the doubts, if any, in the minds of a student, lawyer or anybody for that matter, who is directly, indirectly associated with the field of law. Without taking much time, I would request Honorable Mr. Justice S. Nagamattu to give the insights of this issue so that we can all get enriched by his wide experience, which he had practically while being on the other side, that is, as a lawyer, then as a judge, and thereafter again as a lawyer. Over to you, Honorable Mr. Justice S. Nagamattu. Good evening to all of you friends. It's my pleasure to speak to you all once again through this well-organized webinar on yet another important topic, which is very essential for any lawyer who is practicing on the criminal side, as well as for the students community. Before going into the topic, let me first thank Vikas and all the other persons who are involved in this process in organizing this webinar, which in fact is very useful for the entire legal fraternity, as well as for the students community. I thank Mr. Vikas. I thank you. I welcome the legal fraternity, more particularly the senior lawyers and the other lawyers, students and other participants. Let me now go into the topic. Our today's topic is relating to confessions as to how these confessions, which fall under section 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30, play a role in proving the conspiracy with the aid of section 10 of the Evidence Act. I intend to make a comparative study of all these provisions that is 24 to 30 and section 10 of the Evidence Act. Section 24 speaks of irrelevancy of certain confessions. You know that section 5 of the Evidence Act says that evidence shall be admitted. That is the court shall admit any evidence relating to a fact in issue or any other relevant fact which is declared as relevant in chapter 2. Though many of the provisions in chapter 2 deal with the relevancy, section 24 deals with the irrelevancy of certain confessions. Why the lawmaker, instead of using a positive language, instead of declaring that certain confessions which are free from coercion, undue influence or threat or relevant, has used a different language to say, if it appears to be court, that if any confession has been obtained by undue influence, inducement, threat or promise, then the same is irrelevant and therefore it is not admissible in evidence. The purpose is well known, I do not want to spend more time on this. Now having said in section 24 that certain confessions are not relevant and as a result they are not admissible. The lawmaker has not defined the term confession anywhere in the Evidence Act at all. The expression confession was understood and interpreted in common law jurisdictions before the advent of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore the definition of confession as it was done in common law world has been simply accepted by our Indian judiciary even after the advent of the Indian constitution. As stated in Pulikuri Koranaya, as well as in Pakhala Narayanasamy case, AIR 1939 PC 47, a confession must either admit in terms of the offense or at any rate substantially on the facts which constitute the offense. This is what is the definition of the term or the expression confession which we have adopted in our Indian legal jurisprudence. So the confession may be in full statement admitting the guilt or it may admit some of the facts which may constitute an offense. So this is what is confession. Now section 24 says that if it appears to the court, so please kindly underline the word appears. If it appears to the court that a confession has been obtained by any inducement threat or promise then it is irrelevant. Now this is what is repeatedly reemphasized by the Honorable Supreme Court that the word appears needs to be noted with a conveys a sense that the accused need not either show or prove something that he was under threat inducement or promise. He can bring on record certain materials which will go to show to the court which may make the court to believe that there was inducement or threat or promise and even the confession is not at all advisable. This is what fundamentally section 24 says and if you want to know more about that you please kindly read Pakala and Narendra Swami. So I want to give only a superficial survey of this provision because my main target is section 10. Now what is the use of the confession? Immediately after section 24, section 25 states that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible. It is not relevant at all. Though there was no inducement, though there was no threat, though there was no promise, if the confession had been made before to a police officer then it is inadmissible in evidence. Section 25 completely puts a bar for the admission of a confession made to a police officer. Here you may kindly note that a police officer has dealt with in section 25 of the evidence act, need not be an officer investigating the case. He need not be an officer having jurisdiction over the case. He also need not be an Indian police even. If a confession is made to any person, whether the accused knows that he is a police officer or not, the confession is inadmissible in evidence because the bar contained in section 24, 25 of the evidence act. Now for the purpose of section 25 of the evidence act, to know whether a particular confession is admissible or not, we have to see whether a particular officer is a police officer or not. Now there are certain officers who are a police officer by their very appointment. They are governed by the Indian police act. They are police officers. So if any confession is made to them or any one of them, undoubtedly it is inadmissible. But there are certain other officers belonging to other departments who are not police officers in terms of the Indian police act. Indian police act says that a police officer means a person whose duty it is to prevent and detect the person.