 Thank Vikas for having given me this opportunity along with the beyond law group for having given me this opportunity to give such a talk, particularly based on admissions and confessions. Like how we said, we run short of time always. So let's move on with the topic. So the topic that is particularly given is admissions and confessions and interplay between CRPC and the evidence. Just straight away go with it. The evidence act. Okay. We start with the evidence act. Now at the outset, we should understand something that we have a particular terminology called admission and we also have a terminology called confession. In the course of this analysis, we would be understanding that it is only this particular terminology called admission, which is being defined and not the term called confession. So when you, when we go with the law or when we analyze the law, we are not very sure from a general understanding of when you analyze this process, we are not able to find out what exactly is a confession so that we are able to distinguish between an admission and a confession. So what I would be targeting at majorly is how do you distinguish between an admission and a confession. So I hope my talk will help you to understand the distinction between admission and confession. I would be sharing a couple of case laws which will be landmark decisions and major provisions in the CRPC and evidence which will help us through to understand the exact distinction because and why we speak about the distinction particularly is because one of these terms is not being defined. If it is not being defined, how could the courts come to a conclusion that one particular statement that you make is an admission and the other statement is a confession. How do they come across? So that is what we will be looking at. But that though not in detail, though not in detail, we would be going with a few initial understanding of the term called admission. We need not for this particular purpose, we need not in detail section wise, we need not analyze admission because the time permitted will not allow us to do so. So we start. So when you look at the evidence that section 17 to 31, one shot, one stop, they tell you admissions, they just define your admissions from section 17 to 31. So let's start with section 17. Now section 17 is a definition section, which is defining and telling you what an admissions. So when you look at it, let's be very careful on that. It's a statement that is made. It's just a statement. Oral, documentary, electronic from whatever we say. It's a statement that you have made. Now, what does that statement? It will suggest an inference to the relevant fact or the fact initial. So those things are every statement that you make is not an admission. The first thing that you need to understand, then what does admission, any statement that you make, which brings a inference to the fact initial or relevant fact is admission. The section doesn't stop there. The section moves forward to tell you, which brings an inference as to the fact initial or relevant fact and from there, who does this? The section or the pro the act itself is giving you a set of people, persons who can make such statements, which is laid down under section 18, 19 and 20. In circumstances mentioned here and below. So persons who are mentioned as you know, parties to the suit representatives in interest, persons against persons who would want to prove a statement or to prove the opposition in that case. So all these people can give admission that the general reading would help us to understand that sections 18, 19 and 20. So these persons under 18, 19 and 20, if they make a statement, which brings an inference to a fact initial or relevant fact, becomes an admission. And as circumstances mentioned here and after, that means there are certain circumstances also which are mentioned. So this is section seven, this is the only definition. Now, when you come further, what is the evidentiary value of this statement? How important is this particular statement? Now, always understand that the admissions that are made are always substantial piece of evidence of the fact admitted. The most important part is this statement that you make has to be clear. It cannot be vague and it cannot be ambiguous, but then it has to be clear. It has to be clear and such a statement is a proof. When you make such a statement, such a statement is a proof against the maker. Such a statement is a proof against the maker of such a statement. That means if I have made an admission, yes, I know the person. That's an admission that I made. That is nothing. Yes, I borrowed one lakh from the person. This particular statement is used not against you, not against anybody else, but it is used against the maker himself because if you refer to section 31 of the Evidence Act, it says these statements acts as a stopper. I have a stop from stepping back. I'm a stop from telling everyone that, yeah, I don't know the person. I'm not taking on that because I've already admitted. So that's the evidentiary value of this particular statement, which is defined as admission under section 17. Again, if you have come across planes and written statements, let's say like how I told you already, it's a super recovery of money. And the fact is whether I have taken, I have borrowed one lakh from Mr. X. Now in my written statement, I make a statement saying that it is true that I borrowed one lakh from Mr. X. When I make such a statement, do you think it is necessary that this statement should be proved again and again? I myself have admitted it and according to the proof of it, you can use it against the maker and when you can use it against me, then why would you again want to go over and over on it? So these are statements which I have either mentioned in my pleadies or I would have agreed before the open court. Now these are judicial admissions. Okay, so these admissions, you don't need further proof because I myself, yes, I took one lakh. So when I said that you don't have to go for further proof, but then there could be some statements which I would not have agreed it in my pleading nor would have told it in open court. But I would have told it in some other situation or in some other proceeding which is not in connection with this particular piece. What was, what would be the, can those statements be brought? Can those statements be relied upon? Those statements which I have not told it in my pleading or which I have not told before the open courts are called extra judicial admissions. Now, section 17 onwards, section 17 to 31 deals with, so these are called. So these are these statements that I make are called evidential admissions. These are the kinds of admissions which we would be analyzing under the evidence act because if you have made a statement in the court, which you have accepted, which all have accepted, this is my name. This is my age. This is where I come from. You don't have to keep proving it. So that's a judicial admission that you've made. But then those particular statements which you have made otherwise, what would be it's, what would be the possibility of accepting such a statement that's in evidence during the course of trial? Can you take it? If you take it, what would be its evidentiary back over to what extent will it have a weightage is what these sections will be helping us through. So this is what sections 13 to, in fact, when you speak about specifically when you speak about admissions, I would speak, I would say from section 17 to 23 helps you to understand this. These admissions which you have made other than that, what has been admitted before the court of law or through your period. So that's what these law will help us. And when you go further and particularly, you know, that's understanding that admissions are always statements of admissions. See, as I told you, admissions is the genus, admissions is a genus because there is no term called confession which has been defined. Even the title of this particular chapter starts with admissions. The definition under section 17 is admissions. So then why confessions? So that's exactly what we would be doing as to when every sentence, every statement that you make is an admission. When can this admission be called a confession? Can these admissions be called confessions? If at all at what circumstances is what we'd love to look into and which the evidence doesn't very clearly tell us. So this is exactly so. The law of evidence otherwise is 17 to the, I'm sorry, the law related to admissions is generally from sections 17 to 23, which is just telling you, you know, but particularly to make a point about the co-plaintiffs and co-defendants because admissions are general statements which can be taken both in a criminal case and in a civil case. And when it comes to a civil case, it's when you use the word called plaintiff and defendants. And you know, normally it is not taken against a co-plaintiff, a statement that I make will be used against the maker. Don't forget the tentative value of that particular statement. It is used against me. But how about my co-plaintiff or how about if he's a co-defendant? The law doesn't tell you to take it. It will be used only against you because if that has been taken, used against a co-plaintiff or a co-defendant, there could be a misuse of law. So that's the reason why that is not being permitted. And any statement that you make, and I would like to take section 23 specifically in civil cases because the law specifically speaks about co-plaintiffs and co-defendants. Because of the term being used, we understand in civil cases, it will not be used against co-plaintiffs or co-defendants. It will be used only against you. As the law says, it is always used against the maker himself. Now, so that's up to sections 23, majorly 18, 19 and 20, which is only just telling you who are the parties who can make an admission and when you come to section 21, which exactly tells you it may be proved against the maker himself and so on and so forth. Then comes the terminology called Confession. Now, when you come to Confession, okay, I told you from section 17 on the whole topic is admissions. So all those statements which range from 17 to 31 are admissions. Every statement is an admission. But all of a sudden, after 23, when you're speaking about civil cases and when you jump to section 24 of the Evidence Act, it starts with a statement called Confession. Okay, so it states about a Confession, which is made by an accused person. So till then, the term called accused person is not coming at all. If you analyze it when you read through it, you will understand because when we spoke about admissions also, we said it's a statement which brings an inference to the fact and issue or relevant fact. That's all. It doesn't say civil case, it doesn't say criminal case, it doesn't say no, nothing has been said. All that it says is a statement which brings an inference to a fact and issue or relevant fact. Then when you come to 24, it says a Confession made by an accused person. So that's the first point that we need to keep in mind. That means a Confession happens. So it goes on to say a Confession made by an accused person in a criminal proceeding. That's how the section starts, which means to say that means a Confession is something which is made by whom by an accused, not by any person. Admissions said any person. When it came to this one, they're not defining it, but we're trying to analyze it. We're trying to pull out from the section, from the wordings of the section. We are trying to understand that what could be a Confession. Because 24 is trying to tell you a statement. Confession is something just made by an accused person in a criminal proceeding. Now, there in fact, Section 24, it says that if the accused person is making such a statement, the court will not accept it. If the court feels there is some inducement, credit or promise. So now we are trying without any definitions. We have started with Confessions. So you might be thinking, ma'am, this is going on to the sections. So how are we going to understand what a Confession is? We are coming to it. So these are the laws. So it's 24 onwards, 24 to 30 are the law which relates to Confession. From 24 to 30. Where it will start from Section 17, definition of admission, just any statement that is made. In any case, which gives and only thing is what it should give an inference or suggestion inference as to the factor issue or relevant side. Now, when you come to 24, it is not specifically telling about any statement. It changed the nature of the statement changed. Now, it is a statement which is made by an accused in a criminal proceeding. So the general understanding is Confessions are those statements which are generally made in a criminal proceeding because you don't get it in a civil case. We always, the court is in favor of and when you read again 23, you understand about the amicable settlement that the court would want. That's a reason why the court doesn't take this admission statements against your court, because the court would want to have an amicable settlement after all the civil case. But then when it comes to crime, it's against the society. So the nature of it also changes. So because the nature of the act changes, the law relating it would also change, would also change. So there when you look at it, 24 now is very clearly accused in a criminal proceeding, a statement that you made. The court is not ready to accept if there's inducement threat of us. Then when you go to 25, again, it's clearly telling you. Mind you, a particular confession. Again, which is made to a police officer shall not be proved as against the person who is accused of a new offense. Any confession that is made to a police officer. Now, why am I telling all this? For this, I would like to first take you all through a certain provisions or certain sections of the CRPC. We all know basically a CRPC has got three divisions, which is pre-trial, trial and the post trial. Stages. And in the pre-trial stage, we know which is the functionary. It is the police. Now, that means it's the investigation part. And almost when you come up to 173 wherein, you know, the police submits the investigation report. Now, when you say he submitted the investigation report, what does it look like the investigation report? You will have evidence. Major part of it will be those statements which the police has recorded. From there, the moment he comes to know, there is an offense, FIR, spinal investigation, his process goes on, which we are not going to know. And then, we, there comes a stage at 160 wherein the police gets the opportunity or police has given the power to question people. Who are these people? It only says persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. You can be acquainted in the way, you could be his friend, you could be his neighbor. You would be the person who first saw the body. You would be the person who was witnessing it. You would be the person who heard the first cry. Yeah, I would be coming to whether a confession will be used. We'll be dealing with it. That's where we are coming to. So, yeah. So, thereby, you could be any person. So, then they're not really doing only the accused, accused number one, accused number two, witness for nothing. Any person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, you get the particular opportunity. I mean, you can call before the police and the law relating to it, okay? To the police, you will have to come before the police and you will have to give your statements. And 161 gives the power to the police to examine the business aspect, okay? As part of the investigation of this particular offense, wherever the investigation is happening with regard to that, you know, you can ask questions. So, that is under section 160 right along with 161. There comes 162 and 163. That's where we are having the connection with evidence. They're telling the police. Police, you go, you question, you record those statements and make a note of it. Done, fine. So, 162, you know what it says? No statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation, okay? If you are recording and it's not compulsory that it should be recorded. Because they say, if you're recording it, right? So, it is not compulsory. It should be recorded. It is not compulsory that the person who's giving the statement should sign it. You understand? There is no, no such conditions are being kept. There is no compulsion on this. So, there it says it cannot be used for any purpose except for contradicting the witness. That is when the witness is turning hostile and all. So, that's altogether a different matter. There you can use to contradict. Otherwise, this statement, because there, you know, if the witness says, no, I don't know, I've not made the statement. So, they'll say that they did you make the statement when the police asked you? When the police had made an inquiry, when the police did the investigation and when he asked him this question, did you say, yes? So, you might say, yes, I said. Then today, why are you saying no? So, they're going to contradict that will be used. That has been permitted under section 162 of the CRPC. But otherwise, the clause is very clearly telling you. You don't have to record it. You don't have to get the signature of the person. And the statement that you recorded is for not any purpose. Then why are you giving the police this power? Why are you giving this police this power to, you know, even question people? One of the important reasons why, you know, that doesn't have much of an evidentiary value is because, you know, the police, when they have the power, they have a lot more of opportunity to misuse it. You all of us know the aim and objective of the CRPC. It is not only to protect the victim. It is not only to protect a victim which has got injured, but it also gives provisions of ample protection and care to the accused as well. So here if you're telling whatever statement that the police makes, it's going to be, wow, and it's going to be accepted before the court of law. Then that can be misused. The police can make a statement that they want. That's why 162 is very clearly telling you. It cannot be used for any other purpose. Apart from that, I'll just mention this when you want to contradict. Then 163, okay? Now that is where I want to pull you to section 24 of the evidence. So what is 161? 161, you can ask questions to whom the persons were equated with facts and circumstances. What is 162 telling you? 162 is telling you that these statements that you make, mind you boss, is not being taken except for conviction. It does not have any other purpose. Now 163 is telling you that no police officer or person in authority shall offer or make a cause to offer any inducement threat or promise. Now why is this here? This is here because such a statement with inducement threat or promise has got no evidentiary value under the Evidence Act under section 24. That's where we started. Okay, that's where we started with confession because section 24 directly starts with confession. You can, without giving you a definition, without telling you anything about it, this is directly telling you a confession which is made which is out of inducement threat or promise and if the court feels it's out of inducement threat or promise, we will not take it. It's got no value. So here they are warning, they are warning the police officer telling you, mind you, there is a section called 24 there. If you make it through inducement threat or promise, it's not going to have any value. So the police are asking what am I supposed to do? Because when you come to 25 of the Evidence Act, it continues to tell you that if it is made to a police officer, it has got no value. That is why 162 told us it is of no purpose. Why did it say it's of no purpose? Because under 25, a statement made before a police officer is not valid. What are the evidentiary values? It says no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person. So if you have made a confession, we'll say what a confession is. So if you have made a confession, it cannot be used against the person for the question that was supposed to be now. But you have to read it to 26, which tells you but it can be taken into consideration if it is in the immediate presence of a magistrate. So that means if it is done in the presence of a magistrate, it is God. So till then a confession to the question that was posed, a confession made has got no validity unless and until it is made in the immediate presence of a magistrate. So 162, 163 gives the police the power to take statements from persons who are acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and we have obtained a number of cases which tells us that persons acquainted can also have an accused because he might not be an accused today. Tomorrow he might turn out to be an accused. So thereby it can also include statements of accused persons. So these statements, one, please don't have any inducement that are promised because 24 of the evidence act is reminding you that it has got no validity. Second, whatever statement that you have recorded under 162 has got no validity. It is of no use. It is not for any purpose because 25 tells you that a confession made to a police officer of the evidence act tells you a confession made to a police officer has got no validity. That is the reason why the statement that is recorded under 162 has got no validity of the CRT. Come back to section 26 which tells you the confession made to a police officer if it is in the immediate presence of a magistrate has got validity. That is why most of the investigation matters when you want to make a statement take him to the magistrate and there the police doesn't record the statement you can see, you can see that in section 164 of the CRPC which gives the judge the power or which gives the magistrate rather the power to record statements. There it is telling the magistrate, how will you record it? Why? Because it's a judiciary, it's made in the presence. What exactly would you want to understand from that from section 15 of the TADA? If you can just post it, I can just refer and let you know about it. So thereby, what we were trying to say under section whatever is made before a police officer now one more thing which I wanted to tell you with TADA was they are all strict offenses. So there are certain presumptions which run in favor of those statutes and these are all the general laws. So the laws will be different. So that has to be kept in mind. Though they are not strict law but in the sense Wednesday has now been read through them but they are all statutory offenses. So that has to be kept in mind. So thereby, so 116, 161, 162, 163 which gives the police the power to question and how it should be. So those provisions of the CRPC are very well formulated in such a way that it will be in tune with the evidence act. And now under 164, when the magistrate is giving the particular when the magistrate is giving a particular statement or when he is recording a particular statement there are certain precautions which as a magistrate you should be compliant with. So he needs to look at those precautions. He needs to warn the person don't use this. If you're using it, this will be used against you. The statement that you're making will be used against you. Nobody will compel you. Okay, nobody is going to compel you to give a statement but if you give it and if you sign it then we will use this against you. So that's the warning which a magistrate gives and unless and until this warning is being given such statements are not being accepted. It doesn't give a, what do you call it? It doesn't give a full meaning to it and it's not been accepted to be of having any evidentiary value. So thereby the magistrate has to be very careful when the magistrate is recording it and compliance of section 164 is very needed. If you would want to have an analysis of the section 15 of the Tata Act it's the scheme of recording the confessions, the procedures. As I told you, they are all statutory offenses so they'll have their own procedures and these are one of those sections or one of those parts of the confession where it deviates totally from sections 25 to 30 of the Evidence Act for your information because it's a statutory offense and it's much more a serious statutory offense. So that's the reason why that is not being taken into consideration just to clarify that. So 162, 164 of the CRPC which has been formulated in such a way that is in tune with the Evidence Act. Now let's come back to the Evidence Act so thereby we now know when the police is marking a statement and the police records whatever you tell before the police it's of no value. Unless and until it's marked before in the immediate presence of a magistrate that's the Evidence Revenue. So that's when a confession gets an Evidence Revenue. Now I have been going on telling you people about you know, Confession, Confession, Confession and I have been telling you that this particular term is not being defined in the Evidence Act. So obviously the next question that's going to come within you is you know you're going on telling Confession what is exactly this Confession? Because we have got only one statement any statement which brings an inference or a factor in issue or a relevant fact. Under section 17 is street to be an admission. With this how do you lay down the law relating to 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30? 25 to 31. Now what is it? Now there see 24 we said there should not be any inducement that are promised. That's why we said in CRPC you should not have any inducement that are promised be careful. Evidence Act will not accept it. We got it. Anything which you're meeting before the police officer is not acceptable. That's why state which was recorded is of no purpose. Okay. Now retracted Confessions there are you know there are a lot of discussions again retracted Confessions that terminology which has not been defined which has not been defined but the courts have you know given an understanding with regard to what we mean by retracted Confession when you get back from a when you step back from a statement that you have already made is when you call retracted Confession but you know there he can be he has retracted his Confession he can be called an approver or a hostile witness and he can be cross examined by the party who brings him you know with regard to retracted Confession and but again the court does not reject it altogether okay the court always would set such Confessions with a fear in them because he already said something and he's turned back and now gone against his friends and tomorrow he can go against the law as well so the court always goes with the fear but however if that Confession is always with corroborative other corroborative evidences so that retracted Confession is never a substantial piece of evidence it's never a substantial piece of evidence whereas an admission like how I said if you make it and it's against the makers a substantial piece of evidence but then it's always got a corroborative value but then here yeah let me come to it okay so thereby otherwise with regard to retracted Confessions is why you wanted the latest case loss okay no answer okay fine alright so let's because again I bought a half an hour more okay so thereby I know what I wanted to tell you was so how the law goes in I mean with regard to this admissions and Confessions because we'll have to define it now before going into this okay I would like to bring on to a landmark okay so I would like to go into a landmark decision called I don't know how many of y'all would know it quite an old case 1930s by the Privy Council which is termed as Pakala Narayana Swami I don't know how many of y'all would have heard about it okay Pakala Narayana Swami versus Emperor I'll just give you a gist of the facts no nothing okay so I'll just give you a brief of the facts because you should know that's important okay what happens is this particular person is not going to detail one person takes money okay and if I am not being mistaken this is one of the but this was money like equal to 3000 which was a big amount at that point of time he doesn't give it back so this man goes on asking and he leaves from his place and goes to another place he was working in a government office he retires and he goes back so these people keep on calling him and asking him how come you're not giving the money give them calling the sense letters so once a letter comes says come and collect your money okay so this man leaves his place on the 21st of March don't ask me the rate which I don't remember the Preview Constitution is 1939 21st of March he reaches there he stays there 20 seconds he leaves from there and on the 23rd they get his body in pieces packed in a trunk from a tree this is the crux obviously where did he go he went to the person to collect the money we had the letter now in this case which is very important because this is one of those cases for the first time try to give a new definition to dying declaration under section 32 cross 1 of David and sat because dying declarations are those statements which you make as part of which is which comes to the cause of your debt which reflects the cause of your debt so this letter which called the person to come and collect money what's taken to be a dying declaration what's that which gave part you know that letter acted to be a dying declaration the first time the court accepts it so that way also Phakara Narada Swami is important I just brought to your notice however not important though now so when you go with Confucian so what happens there is so this is for the first time so we have been going on telling Confucian Confucian but still now we have not come across what do you mean by Confucian so now what the court said is now what happens is this person when he was arrested obviously he will be arrested he said yeah I sent a letter second yes this person came to my house on the 21st he stayed in my outhouse I gave the money he left on the 22nd now the question before the court was can this statements be taken up as a Confucian we know Confucian is not being defined we can give a proper definition section 17 says any statement which gives an inference as to a fact is an admission but whether that admission becomes a Confucian is not given so thereby this particular case brought up the question as to when you yes he came I met him I sent a letter he was there with me I met him on 21st he slept at my place on the 21st on the 22nd he left 23rd the body is there in a trunk packed so this statement that I made will it amount to admission or Confucian so first time the court is trying to if you read the case we understand the court is trying to criticize the definition which is given by Stephen stuff like that so let's leaving that apart the court a statement I would just like to code that particular coding that particular statement or observation which the court made which helps us even today even today the courts rely on Pakala Narayana swamis this particular code this particular decision to understand what exactly is Confucian so there it says a Confucian must either admit so what is a Confucian we don't have the definition in evidence side so don't forget don't look at the evidence side that's not going to help us we only understood one thing it should be from an accused it is in criminal proceedings apart from this we don't know anything else because that's all that the section told us then it is telling about the evidentiary value of each statement but then what does it is when it came to Pakala Narayana swami for which it said a Confucian must either admit in terms the offence so admit admit means admission the statement that you make which brings an inference to a fact an issue or relevant fact so what is a Confucian Confucian must either admit the offence yes I did it or at least at any rate the code said or if not for this or at any rate it should substantially it should substantially elaborate all the facts which constitute the offence yes Pakala you have two cases Pakala Narayana swami versus emperor so it has what is it so it should have it should have either given you the correct direct guilt yes I am the one who did it that's a Confucian and this doesn't normally happen in a civil case you understood that is why we were going on saying in section 24 that the person should be accused in a criminal proceeding a Confucian means so when automatically we use the word called Confucian the other terms that creeped in were accused versus criminal proceeding but what it is no tip Pakala Narayana swami where the code said when you speak about a Confucian it must either admit the offence admit it either that should be there or at any rate substantially show that all the facts which constitute that offence without this you cannot call that particular statement an admission sometimes an admission might use so the code goes on to say it might have incriminating facts what are the incriminating facts yes I sent a letter yes the fellow came to my house these are all incriminating incriminating the maker admission is used against the maker so it is used against me to incriminate me into the case so there an admission of a gravely incriminating fact will be there yes I admit I call him yes I admit he is left there in my home that is incriminating no doubt however incriminating even if it is conclusively incriminating will not in itself become a Confucian it is just a mere admission the code said that statement cannot be so this thought in the High Court High Court accepted it as a Confucian High Court said yes it is a Confucian it is very clearly telling he went to the Privy Council Confucian in accordance with section 164 of the CRPC if recorded in accordance in accordance with 164 of the CRPC is a substantial piece of evidence that is why I said not to the police officer but in the immediate presence of a magistrate so section 26 gives you the dimension of value if a Confucian is recorded in the immediate presence of a magistrate and how will the magistrate record it is what 164 tells you 164 CRPC tells you so it is both together you have to read it together why 164 is given is because 26 allows you to take a Confucian that is the reason so thereby so yeah what again I wanted to tell you so thereby even if you have incriminating facts if the guilt is not there that means a Confucian is a statement which reflects the guilt of the person the guilt is not being reflected however incriminating it is according to the Pakkala Narada Swami law it is only an admission and it cannot it falls short I will tell it the other way around it would fall short of a Confucian this has been approved in so many other cases out of which one you know which I would you have enough in no cases if you refer to these books you know you have that Palveen that Kaur's case and there are quite a few cases another important case which I would like to bring to your notice is you know CPI versus Shukla that we see Shukla and others that is a 1998 decision okay if I would tell it the other way around the Jain brothers case quite common Shukla who was NMP and also you have LK Shukla's case okay so these two people I would like to just bring to your notice because you know it's very interesting I know these law that we discussed has been implied in Shukla's case Shukla's case also very clearly went with Pakkala Narada Swami's Confucian decision now what there the issue was this Jain brothers for certain purposes okay for this taking this tender for the steel plant and all those things they bribed the public service so this was a case which came under prevention of corruption act against these two MPs honorable MPs now what happened boss these fellows these Jain brothers they made a list of a notebook the notebook had a list of accounts of kumal they gave money how much money all this so these people try to decode all this and they come across and there is a charge sheet which is filed against these existing MPs who might took names also also so they were booked under prevention of corruption act there were one more question which came was whether an MP will fall under public servant and stuff like that which is not important for us now so another question which came up boss these recordings that is made in the notebook are they confessions alright so that was the next question are they confessions now under section 34 the book of evidence and all when you put up this is the book of account so this book can be taken but what does this book telling this book telling is what this book tells is I pay 100 rupees to you I pay 200 rupees to Mr. A is this confession this is the law said is an admission because it is not telling about my guilt you are not able to refer the guilt of the act I gave 100 rupees to that person I gave 200 rupees to this person it is not an offence so there the quote said it is an admission you can't bring it at par with confession again the quote repeated for Kalanarana Swami and said see according if you are applying the law relating to for Kalanarana Swami so you should read it as those statements which are being recorded which reflects the guilt such a statement is what you will call a confession anything which falls short of it even if it is incriminating so these statements might be incriminating might be showing that yes that you paid money illegally we are not saying no to it but it's admission so in all these cases by these two cases I felt I should be telling you then another case which I want to tell you was FADBI Fadi was the state of MP in that case also the father says that he bent and peeped into the web and he saw the body of the child okay so there again you know the fact that he saw the child in all these circumstances things could be taken these were admissions now the beauty of this as well as the case that I told you that is Shukla, CBN was the Shukla was that when you take them as admissions what is its evidentiary value under section 21 it is used against the maker so if I wrote I paid Mr. X 100 rupees tomorrow I cannot deny the fact that I did not pay it is used against me so though not as a confession these statements can be used as admissions and when they are used as admissions though however incriminating they are the court does not want to take the tricks the court wants to be foolproof it should be proved beyond reasonable doubts so that's why the court is very careful the court is very delicate when the court deals with such statements and the court says yes it's an admission the benefit is yes we use it against the maker so tomorrow Jain brothers don't say that you not paid this money to anybody you can't wash your hands off you have habited a public servant to do an office that's how Shukla's case turned out okay so then again you know so I just wanted to discuss these case laws and also you know a confession now like somebody was asking me about the retroactive confession also taking that apart now section 30 also tells about confession by the co-accused that's where you can read a retracted confession you can confession by the co-accused me along with my co-accused we are so friends that I come to court and say yes this is what we see but somehow my friend tomorrow turns back and say quote all that we said was a false that's not the truth yeah this is what happened so there they are trying to explain it so that's such a statement which you make so such confessions generally under section 30 are used against co-accused so under criminal law so now keep in mind the admission part wherein I told you under section 23 no person accused of friends shall be can I come again shall I finish this and I'll get back to it okay any negative should be read in the positive okay so you put it the other way around and read I think you should be able to understand as I just finished this okay so retracted confession in fact falls within section 30 because it is confession of a co-accused now unlike under section 73 we said if it is an admission we will not use it against article 20 clause 3 self-incriminating statements no person shall be compelled to give a statement against himself that's exactly why that's important thank you for reminding me that because that's exactly why you reflect under 164 there is a warning which the magistrate gives where the magistrate says only if it is that is why we say no you expect me to promise that means you're forcing the person to give a statement so there the magistrate is very clearly telling the person under 164 see only if you are ready to give a statement you give otherwise you don't make any confessions we are not we are okay with it we don't rely only on the confessions so you don't have to worry so warning which gives telling him that we would not want to induce you into any incriminating statements however if you want to make it volatile you can make it but then it will be used against so that's just a warning so that's where you read you know these are all applicable generally what happens is when you are using inculpatory and exculpatory the court does not allow you to accept only the inculpatory and throw the exculpatory statements both inculpatory and exculpatory statements will be used as part of confession you understand otherwise they move as statements of even if they have incriminating factors they will be only taken as admissions they will not be taken as confessions when you are relying on a confession both inculpatory and exculpatory statements have to be taken care of so that's how that's the law that's generally how the law goes that in I mean in the I'm trying to tell you don't take what you want go away what you don't want if you are taking take the whole of it or you throw the whole of it that's the law relating to inculpatory and exculpatory okay yeah fine so and also I just wanted to this was also a latest case which was Deepak by Jagdish Chandra versus state of Gujarat so this was like a 2019 case okay so here the court so when you are looking at the retracted confession confession or retracted confession of the coacuse can be in tune or can be retracted there the court is telling don't ever start a case or try and finish and give a decision based on a confession of the coacuse let the confession of the coacuse be we have no doubts but you don't rely only on that you rely on other substantial piece of evidence and let this confession by the coacuse be of corroborative value I understand so this is one of the latest case laws which happen wherein they are trying to rely on a confession of a coacuse so when it is retracted confession the court is again careful so even in a confession of a coacuse the court is very clearly telling you that is the last bit go to the last because you wanted a latest case that is the last but let do not rely only on a confession by a coacuse and go with the case you go with other substantial piece of evidence and let the confession of the coacuse be applied upon to the coacuse and if it is retracted all the more the court is much more cautious when the court tells you be careful it is retracted if you have other substantial piece of evidence and if this retracted confession is going with it then you can accept it you can't refuse to answer even if you answer or if you don't answer and if you give a wrong answer or a right answer it doesn't matter because under 162 it is of no purpose unless and actually it is for contradiction so you can answer to answer those questions because you know that will help them to take the investigation forward that's all that it is and there you know that is that answer is coming up there is no contradiction no that is because see ultimately what is the evidentiary value that's why I am telling you even when you are recording when the police is recording it what is the evidentiary value of it the evidentiary value it is of no purpose so whatever you say it need not be put into writing you need not even put your signature now by mistake even if you put your signature it is it will not make the trial invalid or anything that will be cured and you don't bother about it because that will not be a value unless and until it is in tune with 25 I mean 26 26 of the evidence act you get it okay so I hope I have I think I have run out of time I hope that this what we have done would give you at least a tip of that but a slight idea about you know how admissions and confessions work and how the CRPC procedure has been put to be in tune with the evidence law of provisions thank you so much we understand that everybody is running short of time maybe even if it is the testing time but too much long session sometimes take away as they say the time span of a student maybe on a webinar also it is approximately 45 minutes only this is by Kurpa swami whether a confession given by Q's could be used in favor in his favor and if so under what circumstances one second where is it it is at the initial stages only could you come again with it it is before that for the 20 cost yes you can keep mum whether a confession you can always avoid I am already answered whether a confession given by Q's could be used in his favor I think I have already clarified statements which are that has already been taken thank you so much there is one question on the youtube I will just take that if confession given to the police has no sanctity then what is the relevance of such a statement this is by Bharat Bhushan Sharma that is because am I muted no it is not of no sanctity you know ma'am the video that was on the youtube the question was from the youtube alright see it is not that it does not have any sanctity it will help so it is developing the police to build up their police because ultimately when these statements come these statements will not be used as evidence against the accused person that is true but then there will be he has to undergo the process of examination and cross examination you understand it because as I told you keep in mind the objective of the CRPC like how the the victim has been protected and provisions are there for the victim accused also a person is treated to be innocent unless and until he is proved guilty and that is to be decided by the court based on the weightage of evidence so if you are giving importance to the police and the statements that you have recorded by the police then manipulation can happen all the more so that is the reason why that is being avoided however it doesn't mean it has got a paper value it will have a corroborated evidence finally even the FIR if you have learnt about the FIR it is not a substantial piece of evidence because you don't rely on an affair to punish a person to convict a person it has only got a corroborated value tomorrow when the whole circumstances of evidence is a complete change then the statements that is recorded before the police statements that is recorded during the course of interrogation these FIR statements all will have a corroborated value it will add to the strength of the case so it's not that it is rejected but then to be on the safer side they don't have a substantial piece of evidence you cannot rely on them to punish a person this is by Vijay with video recording don't you think the whole thing of considering the witness statement cross examination can be reduced to a large extent cross examination can be all this could be done through a video recording cross examination can be reduced to a large extent that all depends upon the lawyer again okay so yes cross examinations in fact it is the cross examinations which takes through as long as because there if you again analyse the evidence act you need not prove the truth you need to only reject the statement as not true you know you can just prove it as false when you are proving it as false you need the burden is not upon you to both say whether the statement is true or false or when I say a statement your burden is only to reject it by cross examining me and testing my veracity once you test the veracity of the witness and if you have succeeded in it then your cross examination is successful so that's the whole trial situation about yeah so we have no other questions except for the in the chat on the youtube people have said that kindly share the judgments on the youtube itself so I will ask the friends who are watching us on the youtube or the facebook that they can like subscribe and share the youtube channel and comment if they are upon we can take the questions that's for evidence it's always for students I would refer the original not the small lectures and criminal procedure I think for CRPC I am sorry for evidence but the clause is also a good book I am telling about the commentaries the big ones that's a good book yeah anything else that's fine yeah thank you stay safe stay blessed and maintain the social distancing share the judgments on the youtube as well as on the facebook thank you everyone thank you so much thank you for having given me this opportunity to share thank you