In *Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor*, (1929) PC 47, the Privy Council …

Question

In *Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor*, (1929) PC 47, the Privy Council observed that:

Accepted Answer

C. {'text': 'No statement that contains self-exculpatory matter can amount to confession if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged', 'label': 'C'}

1. *Pakala Narayanaswami v. Emperor*, (1929) PC 47, is the leading authority on what is and isn't a confession.
2. The Privy Council observed: "No statement that contains self-exculpatory matter can amount to confession if the exculpatory statement is of some fact which if true would negative the offence alleged to be confessed."
3. "All confessions are admissions but not vice versa."
4. Even an admission of a gravely incriminating fact (e.g. possession of a weapon used in a killing) is NOT itself a confession.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 1 — Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws, Lesson 11 (Indian Evidence Act, 1872), pp. 251-272._

Answer

{'text': 'A retracted confession made before the police is by itself sufficient evidence to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt under any provision of the Indian Evidence Act', 'label': 'A'}

Answer

{'text': 'Every admission of a gravely incriminating fact must necessarily amount to a full confession of the offence under any provision of the Indian Evidence Act regardless of context', 'label': 'B'}

Answer

{'text': 'A statement made by the accused to his close relatives must always be excluded as inadmissible under any provision of the Indian Evidence Act regardless of context', 'label': 'D'}