This article is written by Jaya Vats from Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, Delhi. In this article, the author discusses the Islamic Law of confession and its comparison between western and Indian law.
Confession is theoretically defined as a piece of information provided by a person to state his role in a suspected crime or to indicate that a person has a right to that crime. This definition includes civil and criminal liability. A confession or admission of guilt by the convicted is one of the most important forms of culpability. This method of proof is very important to nearly all legal systems. Confession is evidentiary and judgment may take place based on evidence alone. Human experience indicates that, unless they are real, a person would not say things against his interest. None of them would blame themselves and call for grave punishment, even death. It is rare for confessions to be made, particularly in cases of crime where someone, for whatever reason, maybe magnificent to have committed them. It is in this sense that voluntary confession is very relevant.
Legal basis of confession in Islamic law
Every theory of law must be founded on moral grounds in Islamic law. The main source of rule, in general, is known as the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah of the Prophet (S.A.W), as well as the secondary source, containing several other sources, such as Ijma, Qiyas, Istishan, Customs, etc. Under Islamic law, there are three forms of evidence which are as follows:
- Tawatur: Total proof or evidence.
- Ahad: A single person’s testimony.
- Iqrar: Admission, confession included.
It is quite clear at the outset that confession, unlike Western law, does not attach much value to the guilt of the accused. Islamic law tends to be a significant improvement in the laws of the West and India, as Islamic law has different standards of evidence for various crimes as opposed to them.
All duties and responsibilities under Islamic law are divided into two groups, one is known as Huquq Allah (rights of God), and the other is Huquq Al-nas or Huquq al-ibad (rights of human beings). The word Hadd or also known as Hudud is a punishment imposed by God in the revealed texts of the Quran or the Sunnah, as used in the legal Islamic sense. The use of it is the right of God. The six offences commonly known as Hudud offences are drug consumption, stealing, armed robbery, unlawful sexual activity, slanderous allegations of adultery, and apostasy. Confession only works against the confessor and not anyone else. Penalty graded as Huquq Allah embodies three principal characteristics. The first is that a penalty like this is administered in the public interest.
The second is that it can not be made lighter, or more serious. The third is that it will not be forgiven either by the judge or the administrator or by the victim of the crime, upon conviction. In addition to punishment or Qisas, which is the penalty for murder and death, all other crimes are penalized in the Islamic legal system by arbitrary punishments known as ta’zir.The correlation between punishment and the facts needed to prove crimes is therefore apparent. Where the judge is not at all sure of the accused’s guilt, the sentence will not be imposed. Techniques of proof in the judicial system represent the ability of the judge to enlarge or restrict the number of cases in which punishment can or may not be applied. Islamic law supports a stringent application of the criminal law just as evident in modern western law, thus starting with the assumption that the accused is bona fide and innocent.
Emphasis on voluntariness
For decades, the extraction of confession by torture has been a big issue in the western law of confession. The history of slavery in Europe was a normal one. In certain ways, the judge must try to obtain his confession by whatever means possible, and to obtain it, he must take any successful method, while cruelty, available to him. In comparison, Islamic law itself was absolutely against torture for confessional extraction in the seventh century. No particular case from the life of the Prophet can be quoted, in which a confession was tortured. The prophet used different tools to identify a confession’s voluntariness. These tools are:
- Detailed confession: To stress upon the thorough acknowledgement of guilt and conviction, even though the person had willingly confessed before the Prophet, he was only accepted as an accused when he fulfilled every essential component of the offence. The insistence on thorough faith specifically seeks to evaluate the commitment of the religion.
- Confession to be made four times: As mentioned above, Islamic law has various rules of proof for different crimes, but in the case of confessions it also has specific laws. Therefore, a confession of such an offence should also be made four times in the case of adultery and other sexual offences where four witnesses are needed. Perhaps the easiest way to obtain the required voluntariness was the four times confession. The dimension of voluntariness is not so stressed by any other established legal system.
- Specific confession: The rule of specific confession is a crucial step towards the restriction of criminal sanctions. Because of the ethical and moral impact of Roman and Canon law after the sixteenth century, Europeans began to emphasize the accused’s specific confession of guilt. But the Islamic law, centuries ago, made it a prerequisite for confession and punishment. If an individual acknowledges that he has committed a sin that is subject to punishment by one of the criminal repercussions, but does not clearly state what the offence was, the judge can not screen it for him because the law is that confession must be precise and not ambiguous.
- The sanity of the accused to be ascertained: The Prophet used to ask him if he was sane after he had willingly confessed, and that too four times. This met the demand for voluntariness and was a self-designed and successful way to check that no coercion, intimidation, pledge, etc. had been used and instead sought to achieve the desired result of legality.
Scope and limit of retraction
In Indian and western laws, a confession can only be removed but not subsequently from the appellate court and conviction can take place based on a confession not only of its creator but also of his accomplices that has been withdrawn. Islamic law strengthens these legal frameworks as it protects accused people even better than their equivalents in the latter system because under it the accused has the right to revoke his confession even though punishment is imposed and thus avoid guilt. The convicted person is not liable.
For hudud cases, a retraction from conviction shall be admissible until or after the verdict has been released or the penalty imposed and shall invalidate their sentence. Nevertheless, things such as ta’zir or qiyas in violation of a person’s rights are not allowable. In a civil case, a waiver from conviction is not admissible; so if anyone accepts it, even though they revoke it, they are responsible for that privilege. Most Muslim lawyers also accept that the accused will be left free to revoke their confession even after the execution of the sentence. And if, as he is being sentenced, the perpetrator runs out, he will be left behind. Unless he withdraws clearly from his testimony he won’t be disciplined. According to another comment, he will be disciplined if he is detained instantly but not later.
But generally, retraction occurs when:
- The statement has not been signed.
- The defendant denies that it is his signature.
- The defendant alleges that his oral or written statement of guilt was not his own.
- The person was not recorded correctly
- The person was prompted to make a statement or did not make a statement, etc.
The court is obligated in all of these cases to verify the truthfulness of certain evidence and review the statement to confirm the truthfulness of the statement. It may only be called into consideration if the convicted person appears not to make the assertion or in situations where such a declaration was not willingly made.
Application of Islamic laws in a country
Sharia Law is a Muslim traditional civil law. The holy book (The Quran), the Sunnah (the Prophet Muhammad’s rituals or established practices), the Ijma’ (Consensus), and the Qiyas (analogy) are key sources of Islamic law. The Islamic law philosophy is based on these four roots of Sharia law. Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, Hanbali, and Jafari, are the most influential among various schools of Muslim law, for their established methodologies for extracting the Sharia judgments from scriptural sources. Two main fields of law, the ibibâdât (rituals), and the muâ amalāt (social relations) consist of several different topics and are differentiated by classical jurisprudence ( fiqh). Many parts of sharia, thus, align with the notion of the law of the western world, while some are broader in line with the will of Allah. The legal systems in Islamic nations can be classified together as:
- Traditional sharia systems: Within this structure, which is practised by a small number of western countries, classical sharia is officially assimilated to national law and provides its substance at large. The state has a leader who serves as the highest judiciary and may pass and amend laws in some legal jurisdictions, but traditional religious scholars (ulama) play a key role in the interpretation of Islamic law. The traditional sharia system is exemplified by Saudi Arabia and several other gulf countries. Iran has many of the features, but it also has the features of mixed legal structures, such as parliament and codified rules.
- Secular systems: Secular regimes are those in which Sharia law plays no role in the country’s legal structure, and religious intervention in public affairs, politics, and the law are not allowed. Turkey is an example of a Muslim-majority nation with a secular structure, although its secularism has lately been under extreme pressure. Several states in West Africa and Central Asia have also identified themselves as secular
- Mixed systems: Many Muslim nations have mixed legal structures that postulate the constitution and the legal system, while at the same time allowing the principles of conventional Islamic jurisprudence to affect certain fields of national law. Such systems include broad bodies of codified rules, which may be based on European or Indian codes. Lawmakers and contemporary jurists rather than conventional religious scholars play a key legislative role in these structures. Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, and Nigeria are examples of countries with mixed systems. Many Muslim minority nations, including Israel, do have mixed structures that enforce Sharia for their Muslim citizens.
In India, The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Implementation Act 1937 guides Muslims in a variety of fields, especially with the family law, to enforce the Muslim personal law. In India, Muslim personal rights are essentially uncodified, unlike the personal laws of other religions. In essence, it does not rely on laws made by the legislator. It comes somewhat from many other traditional sources of law which date from many years ago.
As Islamic rule had been declared by Prophet Mohammed to be God’s commandment, most Muslims strictly adhere to it. It governs many Muslims’ activities in India: political, economic, social, and even legal. This is also possible that for adherents of Islam in India, the lawmaker did not draft separate personal laws.
Types of confession
Under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 there are different kinds of evidence that can be considered as a confession, as it can occur in many forms. The various sets of confession have no equivalent evidentiary values as others and thus, through the fact that when and where these confessions are made, their values keep on changing and these are:
- Judicial confession: They are also known as formal confession. Statements made in the course of a criminal trial before a judge’s office or in the courts are known as formal or court admissions. Anything more than a ‘plea of guilt,’ as stated in Article 20(3), where, otherwise, the Indian Constitution has no proof of any crime against the confessor, and there is no infringement of that offence to be found guilty of any crime against the confessor. Under Section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, the judicial confession is given the evidence and expresses that a confession made by the judge or the court reported by the judge, as specified by the statute, is assumed valid and actual confession and an offence may be tried by the accused. Section 164 of the CrPC empowers the magistrate to record confessions so the magistrate must not register the confession except if the confession is only registered. Therefore, the identity of the perpetrator must be plain and revealed in court for the guilt of the crime he committed for raising the presumption
- Extrajudicial confession: They are also known as informal confession. Statements made in any place other than the place where a judge is absent, or in any other place than the tribunal shall be regarded as a statement of a non-judicial kind. The statements should not have been related to any specific person. Much as in the concept of a judicial confession, an informal confession may also be produced in the form of a prayer, an informal confession can be rendered in any private space or self-conversation. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Bhajan Singh and Ors., the Supreme Court held that an extra-judicial confession only raises in value if, otherwise, the person who is convicted can not be held responsible for guilt solely based on a religion that he has made is consistent and convincing in the conclusion of the case. Although the extrajudicial confession has no proof relative to a judicial confession, the writing of the accused himself in the case of a written confession is one of the strongest evidence that the court can have for prosecuting the defendant. And when a confession in writing is not available, then the court may test the accused’s oral confession, which has been given to someone else. The comments of the accused to any other person may be admissible to the court’s discretion and approval and can then be punished for the offence of which it is convicted.
- Retracted confession: Retracted confession can be used against the confessor of retracted statements if it is accompanied by other credible and substantiating evidence. A person who confesses a retracted statement may use it if it is supported by other credible and substantive evidence. A retracted confession has circumstantial evidence for example if the police deem the accused guilty of a criminal offence in the view of the jury, they submit a report to the judge or court concerned. In the course of the court proceedings, the judge will take the facts and investigate the accused, and if the court considers someone guilty of some specific offence on behalf of the prosecution report, the court shall order the accused to re-confess the claims. Before the trial begins, the judge must order the accused to retract all the admissions given to the police during police investigation whether he is guilty of an offence or not, and whether the accused does not plead guilty, then he must substantiate his previous admissions. So it is circumstantial for the value of the retracted evidence that the court must very cautiously conclude any inference from.
- Confession by co-accused: In the event of more than one of the accused being charged in a case, and if one of them confesses to being guilty of that crime, the court based on these convictions shall prosecute the other accused as well who co-pursued in the same offence. In the case of Pancho vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that the co-accused’s confessions provide no evidence and can not be regarded as a credible piece of evidence. Therefore, only other evidence can be used to confirm the conclusion drawn by the co-accused’s confession.
Significance of Section 24
Section 24 of the Act defines various cases where a confession is invalid on the grounds of these instances. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act states that a confession made by someone convicted of an offence shall be invalid if that confession is made by a person in an authority like police, a judge, a court, etc. and whether that confession is the product of incitement, a threat or a promise. Mr Stephen in his Law Digest of Evidence described confession as “confession shall at any time be admitted by a person charged with a crime who states or suggests that the crime he committed has been committed.” Confession is one of the most persuasive things to give in a court trial, but very little is known as to how evidence varies based on the confessional characteristics. The confession brought before a judge by the complainant is good evidence and is guilty of being convicted of it. A confession may be used against the person confessing and is appropriate for the conviction itself. Under Section 24, the confession made by the accused of the following reasons is irrelevant:
- Confession is a result of motivation, danger or promise;
- The opportunity, threat or pledge has come from an individual in authority;
- The inducement, threat or pledge is linked to the charge at issue;
- There is some worldly advantage or gain in admission, hazard, or pledge.
Confession under English common law
The Ancient Time rules recognized the deposition of the convicted as a concession in the criminal proceedings. Judges initiated criminal proceedings by reading the indictment and asking the defendant if he admitted his guilt. The defendant will be relieved of the need to file a formal declaration of negation, usually resulting in less than the full fine. Confessions often obtained through torture have been used to investigate and punish crime in much of recorded European history. By the 16th century, almost all the major European countries (England was an exception) were legally and routinely using torture to investigate the crime. Throughout continental Europe, the legal use of judicial torture was abolished only in the middle of the 18th century. Voltaire, Cesare Beccaria, and other scholars of the enlightenment supported the abolitionist movement and pointed to many instances in which innocent citizens had admitted to crimes which they did not commit.
Throughout medieval England, the convicts were usually subjected to corporal and capital punishments, but torture was never officially condoned for confessions. As crown appointees, English judges were frequently part of the investigation, but they had no jurisdiction to launch cases or obtain proof. The confession of a defendant, requested by prosecutors, was appropriate and strong evidence, but English judges were allowed to deny a denomination rendered through coercion or other brutality of questioning in the middle ages. Probably, in breach of common law, English magistrates bowed to the reigning king and provided for confession to be obtained using a rack, a thumb-screw, or other torture devices. Nevertheless, by the middle of the 17th century, the English had been persuaded to accept that the use of torture or threats of torture by accused criminals was unjust and therefore illegal to make confessions. Confessions extracted through torture have been freely received for centuries under western law. The trial reports dating to the mid-17th century at least show that the court questions the accused and tries whatever they can obtain from it by way of confession without permission or impediment. It was common to use torture to extract confessions; thus collected denominations were explicitly used unscrupulously. Confession itself was seen as the “highest conviction possible.”
But now the English common law focuses on the framework that regulates the process of police questioning which shall provide requirements for deciding whether the statements of the suspect are admissible in court. Confessions also serve as a powerful weapon within the law enforcement system, which may reinforce or encourage the suspect to plead guilty. A confession is now only admissible as evidence when rendered voluntarily, i.e., as long as it did not occur as a result of a temporary trial intervention or some intimidation from any person in charge. Furthermore, a person with such an unstable or unbalanced mind must not make a statement that cannot be understood or taken into account. It is the prosecutor that has the ethical responsibility to show that a confession is voluntary. Thus, it is now accepted that, through a commitment of some kind of favour, profit, or torture, the confessions in English common law have been extracted for many centuries. There was no proof of voluntariness in confessions. The law on English confession now is stemming from the reliability-based voluntariness check, which developed into a strict ban on so-called threats and pledges, then again started to investigate the relationship between the police’s actions and the suspect’s answer.
Important Case Laws
Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor
This case is still widely considered as one of the most important priorities of the Law of Evidence, although it was decided by the Privy Council in 1939. The concept of confession concerns a substantial and integral part of the Law of Evidence. But in the Evidence Act, the expression ‘Confession’ was not described or clarified. This case, aside from other factors, is especially important because of Lord Atkin’s insights on what constitutes a ‘Confession’. In this case, the principles of identification of a confession and a death declaration are clarified. In this case, Pakal Narayan Swami, the accused appealed to the Privy Council against the judgment of the High Court of Patna, which affirmed the conviction and death of the accused by the Session Judge of Berhampur. The defendant sought to set aside the conviction and death penalty given by the Privy Council.
There were two main issues in this case:
- Whether the deceased’s comment to his wife that he would take back his loan from Berhampur has deemed a dying declaration?
- Is it possible to consider the statement of the accused as a confession?
In an often-quoted passage, Lord Atkin stated that the word “confession” as used in the Evidence Act could not be construed as meaning the statement of the accused “suggesting the inference that he committed” a crime. A confession must recognize the crime in its entirety or at any rate significantly all the details that constitute the offence. A confession is not an admission of significant and incriminating truth, nor a definitive truth. A statement containing self-exculpatory evidence can not amount to a confession if the exculpatory statement is of a fact which, if true, would negate the offence alleged to have been confessed to.
The Privy Council stated that a confession is a statement made by the accused in which he admits to the term of the offence, or essentially admits to all the facts of the offence, or a statement suggesting that the accused committed the offence. The Privy Council clarified that although the accused makes a statement that admits incrimination to the facts, it does not, in itself, make the statement a confession. In the famous cases of Jageshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, etc., the statement of Lord Atkin was also accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. This case is one of the examples of the standards of common law, in which the Supreme Court of India relied on a precedent for independence even after independence.
In another case of Palvinder Kaur V. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court lifted the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Pakala Narayan Swami and based their arguments on two grounds: First, there is no definition of confession except in the statement that, whether a person is culpable of infringement or admitted to be culpable, all the facts that constitute the offence have been proven to be acceptable. Secondly, in case of a combination of confessional statements that contribute to the acquittal of the confessor, these claims should not be regarded as a religion. Second, the assertion has different qualities.
In the case of Nishi Kant Jha v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court pointed out that there is no mistake in relying on any part of the statements made by the accused and neglecting the other part, the court has drawn this concept from English law, and when the court, in its capacity, has understood that it has sufficient evidence to ignore the exculpatory part of the confession, it may rely on the indictable part of that confession.
Ram Prakash v. The State of Punjab
In this case, the appellant and a servant were tried for the murder offence. The prosecution argued that the defendant took advantage of his child being alone in the room, went upstairs and killed him, and stole his ornament while staying with him downstairs in the conspiratory with the person serving in the room of the deceased. The evidence on which the prosecution relied, consisted of the confession of the servant, the statement of the appellant which led to the recovery of the ornaments belonging to the deceased from the possession of the appellant’s mistress, the collection of a blood-stained dagger from his belongings at the police station and his conduct after the murder.
The servant’s confession was eventually removed at the court’s session. The appellant argued that a withdrawn confession of an accused against his co-defendant could not be used. The Supreme Court, in this case, held that everything in the Evidence Law stipulates that if a confession is withheld, the court should not take a confession against the co-defendant, or a confession convicted, into account, not only against its author but also against the other accused. However, given the fact that the retracted confession against the co-accused can be taken into account, their validity is extremely low, and without any evidence or factual information, there can be no conviction.
The differences between Indian and western laws on confession
The difference between the western and Indian laws of confession is that under western law, a convicted person’s admission to the police could be made under court if he had been informed and the exact words of the convicted had been deposed. Indian legislation on the subject was enacted in 1861. Commentators of the Indian law of evidence held that two departures had been made from western law i.e English law and so they were: (1) that no statement made by any person to the police officer at the trial included the accused person; and (2) that no caution should be given to the person making the statement. The terms in this section were physically extracted from a 1785 English authority in R. v. Hart.
The Evidence Act in England mostly consists of negative rules, which declare what is not evidence. It is virtually always judged by law made by degrees that meet the criteria of particular cases and the very contemporary date, to which glosses have been applied, which are determined by successive writers of textbooks. For those places where civil law is practised up to the period when a conviction was lately considered so strong that proof was not even permitted to refute it, from that very reason an old tradition of “problem” existed with all its terror; and even nowadays the judiciary is practising the presence of the accused personally. The maxim “Nemo tenetur se ipsum prodere” has always come to England; however, it may rarely, in rougher times, be exercised through some hypothetical prerogative of the crown, and judicial punishment has never legitimately been achieved in England.
Whereas in Indian Evidence law under Section 27, was so much the subject of judicial remarks that it was inappropriate for the dicta of the various high courts to be repeated. It would be helpful, however, to refer to one or two notable authorities on the subject. In the case of Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, it was held that it is incorrect to treat the reality discovered in the section as equal to the object generated. The fact that the object has been found must relate distinctly to the event and the knowledge of the accused and the information given. The burden of showing that a confession under English law is voluntary or involuntary lies with the prosecution. The prosecutor will determine that the admission of the prisoner is free and voluntary and that the voluntariness of the confession is negative for the accused. A voluntary and unexpected confession is sufficient both in England and India, to justify the conviction. It was once contended that confession alone is a good enough reason for conviction without such evidence, but it is not crucial for the cases brought in support of this doctrine since, for everyone, there seemed to be some evidence out of confession, although slightly confirmative circumstances, and now the opposite view may be accepted as settled law.
The validity of a confession
The confession is regarded as the best and most conclusive evidence if it is voluntary and credible since it is assumed that ‘nobody will make a false statement against it’. A conviction may only be founded on confession if the court is assured, that the confession is voluntary and trustworthy. The court must have a high degree of satisfaction. The court must demonstrate a willingness to confess because a confession can not always be free and valid by the accused; it can be given non willingly or can be tampered. Often mental aberration and pride may be the source of escape from physical and moral torment, etc.
While there is no rule of law specifying that guilt can not be built on uncorroborated testimony, it is usually regarded as reasonable to treat testimony in the light of all the facts on record as a matter of caution. In the case of Muthuswamy V. State, The court noted that confession should not be accepted simply because it contains a wealth of details. When the major characteristics of the story are not shown, it is not possible to base a conviction on confession on its own, for reasons of prudence. Consequently, the court has a legal duty to determine whether the accused’s confession is voluntary or not. In the case of Sahoo V. State of Uttar Pradesh, the courts had to use the double-check for confessions, whether the confession was completely voluntary and if so, whether it was true and credible.
If all of the above requirements are fulfilled by a confessional document, it can be relied upon. Confession as proof has a high value and is most appreciated by the court of law. A conviction can only be based on confession if it is undoubtedly voluntary and reliable. Confession carries a strong force within itself and therefore, can lead the whole process in a specific direction; it is not necessary to undermine the seriousness associated with a confession. It has to be handled with great care and patience to avoid even minor error chances.
Scope of improvement for Indian and Western laws on confession
At the end of more than 100 years following the enactment both in Indian and western law, the western law has started taking steps towards the reformation, According to them, codifying the key rules of evidence will go a long way to close the distance that is taught and applied within this branch of the law. There would be no reason to demand codification of any aspect of the legislation, but in the case of a proof statute, it will save time and make the topic far more clear. For the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a careful study must be undertaken to determine the effectiveness of its provisions in the changed political and social perspective of today’s people.
The role this law has played in the field of litigation and judicial matters in this country must now be taken into consideration. Individuals should get the law, they deserve it; but then the law of the individuals doesn’t stand, and one person leads the other at one time. As the saying goes, all of its mites in good old India were made to make a promised moustache hair from generation to generation or a “word of honour” was of great undoubted social value. Even oaths and registered documents today are of doubtful importance. Confessions, while not uncommon, are commonly withheld or are not simple and straightforward to admit guilt, and so here the police custody records often help as they include parts that refer to a criminal instrument. A class of administrative machinery has been labelled as absolutely unfaithful — a condition that does not exist in any other country or at least in the country from which the concepts of the Indian Evidence Act have been borrowed. All of these encourage us to pause and re-evaluate the viability of the centuries-old enactments, in the light of the present economic and political conditions and in the light of the objectives that society has set itself to achieve.
The Central Government, in its 69th report, has re-assigned the law commission for revising the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. The explanation was that there had been several improvements in the proof rule, albeit not satisfactory in any circumstances. Yes, the task of updating the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 was a monumental one. However, the law commission has made an almost impossible task a reality, not once, but twice. Nonetheless, it is appalling that its proposals have not yet been adopted into the Act, sculpting for change. An equally exciting effort by the Indian legislature is required. The commission suggested and introduced necessary changes to the Act and recommended them to be endorsed by purpose and authorities. Recommendations demonstrate tremendous firmness and consistency because of the covers of British, American, and Canadian jurisdictions in pursuit of effective steps and comparative analyses. Although the solution is largely doctrinal and does not have a realistic approach in many respects, in light of the recommendations made by the Malimath Committee and related committees, no other approach would have explained the giant challenge to be reviewed. In all, the commission has started carrying out an appreciable function and needs to be urgently set up to carry out futile trials, which could be faced with obsolete and outdated provisions of the Act.
Islamic law of confession is certainly more humane, fair, unprejudiced, equitable in comparison to other country’s laws. While confessions in the west have been obtained through torture and other harsh methods for hundreds of years, Islamic law from the beginning has put a great deal of emphasis on voluntary confession using many different means, including detailed, specific faith, four-times confession, and questions about the health of the person making it. In comparison to western law, the principle of repentance only against the convicted and his removal even though punishing them represents a step forward. In Islamic law, even the western emphasis on the legality principle seems to be established and highlighted, well before the Europeans began to emphasize on it. Even in Indian law, it can be overall analyzed that confession must be explicitly and unambiguously admitted to all the minimum facts which constitute a crime that has been charged, leaving no room for proof of any fact other than the facts that have been established. The history of confession law shows that in various countries the concept has gradually evolved. In light of the relevance and admissibility of the confession, the courts have started adopting a precautionary approach.
The above-mentioned discussion shows that confession is an important part of the judicial system of Islam with India and Western Countries. A confession must therefore always be the product of one’s conscience which is guided by principles that include virtues and repentance The underlying motive for guilt must always be tainted with repentance and regret, and not with injustice or power. This is, therefore, necessary to ensure the truthfulness and willfulness of confession. If confession is solid and strong then it is very essential for aiding the dispensation of justice, which is a prerequisite for the establishment of a peaceful society.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: