Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani
The Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of the voluntariness
of a confession. The court emphasized the importance of a free and
voluntary confession. It ruled that if a confession is found to be
involuntary, it cannot be admitted as evidence.
Aghanoo Nagesia vs the State of Bihar (1965)
Supreme Court held that confession is a species of admission.
Balwinder Singh v. State
SC held that in the case of an extrajudicial confession, the court
must assess the integrity of the person making the confession, and
all of his claims must be examined by the court in order to
determine if the person making the confession is trustworthy or not;
otherwise, if the person making the confession is not trustworthy,
his statements cannot be used to prove the guilt of the accused.
Pakal narayan swamy vs Emperor 1939
Court held that when Accused either admits in
the terms the offence or of any rate
substantially all the fact which constitutes the
offence is called confession , which means that
there should be a direct acknowledgement of
all facts or elements that constitute an offence.
Palvinder Kaur vs State of Punjab 1952
Supreme Court approved the definition of
confession given by privy council in pakala
Narayana Swami case.
State of Maharashtra vs Kamal Md Vakil Ansari 2013
Supreme Court held that confession is a statement made by a
person charged with crime suggesting and inference as to and
fact in issue or relevant fact this inference should suggest that
the person is guilty of crime
State NCT of Delhi vs Navjot Sandhu 2005
Supreme Court held that statement made to TV and press by
accused persons in presence of police and in police custody
were inadmissible.
Pyarelal versus state of Rajasthan 1963
Supreme Court held that a retracted confession may form the
basis of convection if the court is satisfied that it was true and
voluntary made. Therefore, as a matter of law corraboration
is not necessary if Court is convinced about the truthfulness
and voluntary nature of confession.
Damodar Prasad Chandrika Prasad vs state of Maharashtra 1972
Supreme Court held that it is settled law that FIR is not a
substantive piece of evidence that is it is not evidence of the
fact which it mentions.
Nishikant Jha vs state of Bihar 1959
Supreme Court held that there was nothing wrong in Reliance
on a part of confessional statement and rejecting the rest.
Nathu vs state of UP 1956
Supreme Court held that no conviction can be founded on
evidence of co-accused. The reason is that the confession made
by accused is not on oath and since the Co-accused is himself
tried for that offence, his credibility is also questionable.