Question: A, while talking in his sleep made a confession and which was overheard by B. Is this confession admissible in evidence against A? Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A, while talking in his sleep made a confession and which was overheard by B. Is this confession admissible in evidence against A?]… Read More »

Question: A, while talking in his sleep made a confession and which was overheard by B. Is this confession admissible in evidence against A? Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A, while talking in his sleep made a confession and which was overheard by B. Is this confession admissible in evidence against A?] Answer According to Sir James Stephen “An admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed...

Question: A, while talking in his sleep made a confession and which was overheard by B. Is this confession admissible in evidence against A?

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [A, while talking in his sleep made a confession and which was overheard by B. Is this confession admissible in evidence against A?]

Answer

According to Sir James Stephen “An admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed a crime”. The definition of admission in Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act also applies to confession in the same manner.

A confession may occur in many forms. When it is made to the court itself then it will be called judicial confession and when it is made to anybody outside the court, in that case, it will be called extra-judicial confession. It may even consist of conversation to oneself, which may be produced in evidence if overheard by another.

In “The Principles of the Law of Evidence” by W.M. Best, 12th Edn., at p. 454, it is stated much to the same effect thus: “Words addressed to others, and writing, are no doubt the most usual forms; but words uttered in soliloquy seem equally receivable.”

According to Phipson: “A statement which the prisoner had been overheard muttering to himself if otherwise than in his sleep, is admissible against him if independently proved.”

Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that there is no bar to admissibility of a confession when no prior warning was given to the accused that he was not bound to make any confession and that might be used against him.

In the case of Sahoo v. State of U.P. [ (AIR 1966 SC 40)], the Supreme court of India held that a confession soliloquy, heard by others, will not be inadmissible but can only be used for the purpose of corroboration. A confession, like admission, can be judicial or extra-judicial. In this case, the accused was talking to himself and made the confession of killing his own daughter which was overheard by the witness. This was held to be confession relevant in evidence.

Again, in the case of R. v. Boughton [70 JP Rep 508], where the police overheard the accused making confession to his inmate, by making a hole in the prison wall, the court held that it was a valid piece of evidence and was held to be admissible.

Therefore, in the present case at hand when A, while talking in his sleep made a confession and which was overheard by B. This confession can be made admissible in evidence against A by virtue of section 29, the Indian Evidence Act.


Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

  1. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-I
  2. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-II
  3. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-III
  4. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IV
  5. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-V
  6. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VI
  7. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VII
  8. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-VIII
  9. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-IX
  10. Law of Evidence Mains Questions Series Part-X
Updated On 2021-11-09T10:40:18+05:30
Admin LB

Admin LB

Next Story