Statement and Confession before Police: An Analysis Highlighting the Prerequisites of Admissible Testimony before Court

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