The term ‘confession’ is nowhere defined or expressed in the Indian Evidence Act. Section 17 expressly provides that any statement whether oral or in the form of documentary which put forward for the consideration of any conclusion to the fact in issue or to the relevant facts. The statements may infer any reasoning for concluding or suggesting that he is guilty of a crime. We may also define the confession in other words that the admission by the accused in the criminal proceedings is a confession. Sections 24 to 30 deal with confessions. However, the Act does not define a confession but includes in its admissions of which it is a species. Thus confessions are a special form of admission. Whereas every confession must be an admission but every admission may not amount to a confession. Sections 27 to 30 deal with confessions which the Court will take into account. A confession is relevant as an admission unless it is made:
a) to a person in authority in consequence of some inducement, threat or promise held out by him in reference to the charge against the accused;
b) to a Police Officer; or
c) to anyone at a time when the accused is in the custody of a Police Officer and no Magistrate is present.
Thus, a statement made by an accused person if it is an admission, is admissible in evidence. The confession is a piece of evidence only against its maker and against another person who is being jointly tried with him for an offence. The confession made in front of a magistrate in a native state recorded is admissible against its maker and is also admissible against co-accused under Section 30.
Illustrations
a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said-“B and I murdered C”. The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.
b) A is on trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B and that B said—“A and I murdered C”.
This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being jointly tried.
According to Section 24, confession caused by inducement, threat or promise is irrelevant. To attract the prohibition contained in Section 24 of the Evidence Act the following six facts must be established:

• that the statement in question is a confession;
• that such confession has been made by an accused person;
• that it has been made to a person in authority;
• that the confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement, threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority;
• such inducement, threat or promise, must have reference to the charge against the accused person;
• the inducement, threat or promise must in the opinion of the Court be sufficient to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a
  temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

TYPES OF CONFESSION AND PROCESS OF RECORDING CONFESSIONS

1. Formal Confession: – Formal confession is also known as Judicial Confession, and it refers to claims made before a judge or in a court of law during a criminal proceeding. A judicial confession is nothing more than a “plea of guilty” as specified by Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution; otherwise, any confession made against the person making the confession has no evidentiary value, and he cannot be found guilty of any crime on the basis of such confession.
2. Informal Confession: – Extrajudicial confession refers to claims made outside of a court or in the absence of a judge. It was not appropriate for the statements to be addressed to a specific person. Informal confession can be made in the form of prayer, in any private space, or in a self-conversation, just as it can be made in the form of judicial confession. However, the court must ensure that the accused’s confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, is consistent with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which states that “No one should be coerced to give evidence against himself.” This means that the confession must be made freely and truthfully, and only then may a person be charged with a crime. Extrajudicial confession occurs when a person confesses his guilt of the crime he committed to a private person, such as a friend or a family member. In, Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu13 the Supreme Court while deciding the case has made few principles in the form of guidelines where the court has to check such principles before admitting the confession of the accused, The following principles mentioned by the Supreme Court are:

• Extrajudicial confessions are typically a very poor type of evidence on their own, and the court must thoroughly analyses such claims.
• Extrajudicial confessions should be made with one’s own free will and must be truthful.
• When extrajudicial confessions are backed up with other facts, their evidentiary value skyrockets.
• The confessor’s comments must demonstrate his guaranty

3. Retracted Confession: – The concept of retraction in English is “the action of drawing back something.” Retraction confession is a form of confession in which the confessor makes a voluntary confession that is then reversed or retracted by the same confessor. If it is substantiated by other independent and corroborative facts, a retracted confession may be used against the individual who is confessing any retracted statements.

4. Judicial Confession: – Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act gives judicial confessions evidentiary value, stating that if a confession is made in the presence of a magistrate or in a court and is registered by the magistrate as required by law, the confession is assumed to be valid and genuine, and the accused may be tried for the crime. Since section 164 of the Criminal
Procedure Code empowers magistrates to record confessions, it is not important to know which magistrate reported the confession unless he is prohibited from doing so. As a result, in order to raise the presumption, the accused’s identity must be clear and proven in the confession in order to persecute him for the crime he committed.

5. Extra-Judicial Confession: – Though extra-judicial confessions have less evidentiary value than judicial confessions, in the case of a written confession, the accused’s writing is one of the strongest pieces of evidence the court has to convict the accused of the crime. If the accused’s confession is not available in the form of written statements, the court can examine
the accused’s oral confession to some other individual. The remarks of the accused to any other person may be admissible at the court’s discretion and satisfaction, and the accused may then be tried for the crime for which he is convicted.

6. Confession by Co-accused:- The Supreme Court in the case of Pancho v. State of Haryana 2011 AIR, held that The co-confessions accused’s have no evidentiary value and cannot be regarded as a substantial piece of evidence. As a result, the co-confession accused’s can only be used to bolster the inference reached based on other facts.

WHEN IS A CONFESSION RELEVANT?
Sections 24, 25, 26 and relevant part of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deal with the condition that when can confession be irrelevant. Section 24&17 of the same Act describes different instances when a confession on the basis of
such instances becomes irrelevant. Section 24718 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a confession made by a person who is accused of some offence is irrelevant if such confession comes out of any inducement, threat or promise and such instances have proceeded from a person in authority like police, magistrate, court etc., the other condition of this section is that inducement, threat or promise should be in reference to the charge of any offence and all such inducements, threat or promise should give the benefit of temporal nature. We can break down the entire structure into four separate essentials for a better understanding:

• Confessions must be made as a result of coercion, danger, or pledge, among other things.
• An individual in a position of authority should make such a confession.
• It should be relevant to the charge at hand.
• It should have either a temporal advantage or a temporal disadvantage.
  Thus, when these conditions are fulfilled then the confession becomes irrelevant.

Section 28- Confession Made After Removal Of Impression Caused By Inducement, Threat Or Promise, Relevant: 

If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the court, been fully removed, it is relevant. Confession After Removal Of Threat Or Promise- under section 24 we have seen that if the opinion of a court a confession seems to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge and proceeding from a person in authority, it is irrelevant and cannot be proved even against a person making the confession

The impression produced by promise or threat may be removed

• By lapse of time, or • By an intervening caution given by some person of superior authority to the person holding out the inducement, where a prisoner confessed some months after the promise and after the warning his confession was received. 

Section 30- Consideration Of Proved Confession Affecting Person Making It AndOthers Jointly Under Trial For The Same Offence-

When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence and a confession made by one such person affecting himself and some other such persons is proved, the court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. 

Principle

when more persons than one are jointly tried for the same offence, the confession made by one of them, if admissible in evidence, should be taken into consideration against all the accused, and not against the person who alone made it. It appears to be very strange that the confession of one person is to be taken into consideration against another. Where the confession of one accused is proved at the trial, the other accused persons have no other opportunity to cross-examine him. It is opposed to the principle of jurisprudence to use a statement against a person without giving him the opportunity to cross-examine the person making the statement. This section is an exception to the rule that the confession of one person is entirely admissible against the other.

CONFESSION ON PROMISE OF SECRECY, ETC- section 29 lays down that if a confession is relevant, that is, if it is not excluded from being proved by any other provision of the IndianEvidence Act, it cannot be relevant if it was taken from the accused by: 1. Giving him the promise of secrecy, or 2. By deceiving him, or 3. When he was drunk, or 4. Because it was made clear in answer to question which he need not have answered, or because no warning was given that he was not bound to say anything and that whatever will state will be used against him

INTERROGATION BY POLICE AND CONFESSIONS
As can be seen by comparing Section 162(3) of the Cr. P.C. with Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the announcements made to the police are not conceded for the purposes of allowable bits of proof. Affirmations to the police are not to be recorded: In evidence in the use of explanations, A simple reading of sections 61 and 167 of the Cr.P.C. reveals that in the first instance, the police investigation of the crimes committed by a man apprehended without a warrant should be concluded within 24 hours under section 61, and if not, within 15 days under section 167. Any cop conducting an investigation may question orally any person presumed to be familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case; the conclusion can then be documented in writing; however, these statements are not to be marked by the maker of such declarations under Section 162. (2). In section 161 (2), the cop should follow those civilities while conducting an oral interview.

RECORDING OF STATEMENT
According to the statute, the confession booth explanation must be registered “either in writing or on some mechanical or electronic device such as tapes, tapes, or soundtracks from which sound or pictures may be replicated” (Section 32 (1) POTA). Except for the extension of the term ‘electronic,’ this is a verbatim copy of the applicable structure in the TADA Act (Section
15 (1)). According to both of these agreements, the admission can only be recorded by a police officer who is not lower in rank than a Superintendent of Police.

CONFESSION UNDER MEDIA TRIAL
Though shedding the old cover of accounting evidence, Indian courts have recently begun to recognize the importance of confession booth claims made in the media. By ruling that meetings provided by a denounced to TV channels could be considered evidence by courts, the Supreme Court added another, and notable, aspect to the conservative criminal law and gave a part to the media in criminal trials.

CONFESSION IN POLICE CUSTODY
When it comes to the moment when a man is interrogated by police, the Evidence Act has a few safeguards. When cross-examining a suspect, the questioning should not be intimidating or frightening. The police do not prevent third-degree confirmation or admission. Aside from that part of the announcement that leads to the discovery of implicating material, the accused’s explanation to the cop isn’t admissible in evidence. The warning about the suitability of a confession made to a cop is suggested as a way to protect the accused against the police using third-degree tactics. The proving law is straightforward enough that an admission made to a cop isn’t allowed, but it can be used as part of the proof of the thing recovered as a result of the charged admission to a cop. As a result, if a firearm used in a number of cases is recovered by the police as a result of an admission made by a blamed party, the recovery is an important piece of proof. In this way, it would be accurate to conclude that the Evidence Act’s provisions unmistakably condemn the police and undermine public confidence in them. Under the plan of the Constitution and Evidence Act, a man cannot be undermined, tortured, or any other route regulated in order to elicit any form of explanation that has implicating sway over the arrested or blamed person.

Confessional FIR

 Only that part of a confessional First Information Report is admissible which does not amount to a confession or which comes under the scope of section 27. The nonconfessional part of the FIR can be used as evidence against the accused as showing his conduct under section 8. Statement Not Amounting To Confession A statement which does not amount to confession is not hit by the bar of the section. A statement in the course of the investigation was that the design was carried out according to the plan. The statement did not refer to the persons who were involved in the murder, nor did the maker of the statement refer to himself. This was held to be not a confessional statement. Hence, not hit by section 25. The statement of the inspector(crimes)that the accused accepted before him that he got the counterfeit currency notes from a stranger but the accused denying to have so stated, was not admissible in evidence

Case Laws :

In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab 1952 AIR 354, the Supreme Court approved the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case over two scores. To begin with, confession is described as either admitting guilt in terms or admitting substantially all of the facts that constitute the offence. Second, a jumbled statement, even though it includes some confessional statements, would always result in acquittal, is not a confession. As a result, a statement containing self-exculpatory information that, if valid, would negate the issue or offence, cannot amount to confession.

In, State of Punjab v. Bhagwan Singh1992 AIR 1689 the Supreme Court in this case held that, In this case, the Supreme Court held that the validity of an extrajudicial confession increases only if it is clearly compatible and persuasive with the case’s conclusion; otherwise, the accused cannot be held responsible for his guilt solely on the grounds of his confession.

In Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan 1963 AIR 1094, the Supreme Court, In this case, the Court determined that a withdrawn confession has sufficient validity to provide all other legal basis for conviction only if the Court is satisfied that it was valid and made of someone’s own volition. However, the Court must testify that convictions cannot be based solely on confessions unless and unless they are corroborated.

Conclusion:

 Confession is not defined in the Act. Mr Justice Stephenin his Digest of the Law of Evidence defines confession as “confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime. Confession is a statement made by an accused person which is sought to be proved against him in criminal proceedings to establish the commission of an offence by him. Confession if deliberately involuntarily made may be accepted as conclusive of the matters confessed.