Abstract:
An accused person confesses to self-harming while admitting his guilt. Although not all
confessions are equally valuable, they are the best evidence against the person who made them.
Confessions made by the accused to different people and under different circumstances have
different admissibility, evidential value, and probative power. With minor modifications, the
statutory laws of evidence (the Evidence Act, 1872) and criminal procedure (the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898) that were adopted in the colonized India, which is now made up of
Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, are still in effect in these nations. There are no statutory laws
that address whether a confession can serve as the only basis for conviction; instead, one must
rely on case laws. The provisions pertaining to confession in the Evidence Act, 1872 merely
specify when a confession can be used as a piece of evidence in a court of law and the
presumption of genuineness of judicial confession. Depending on the facts of the cases before
them, the judges' wisdom and discernment assess when a confession that has been entered into
evidence can serve as the foundation for a conviction. Confessions alone can result in
convictions in certain cases, but when they are not supported by additional evidence, they cannot
be used to convict a confessor. However, there are times where the case laws diverge in this
regard. Case law and principles of law can clash just as much as case law can conflict with itself.
This essay attempts to investigate and examine the statutory rules established by legislative
assemblies, as well as the cautionary and prudential regulations established by Indian
subcontinental judges, in order to advance procedural justice when condemning an individual
based solely on his confession
