The document discusses the definitions and principles related to confessions and admissions in evidence law. It begins by defining a confession as an admission stating or suggesting that the accused committed the offence. A confession can be plenary (full acknowledgment of guilt) or non-plenary (incriminating statement suggesting guilt). All confessions are admissions but not all admissions are confessions. The document then examines circumstances where confessions may be excluded, such as if they were obtained through inducement, threat or promise by a person in authority. It also discusses exceptions where a confession can still be admitted, such as if the improper influence has been removed. The document analyzes several key court cases related to these principles.

1. 1
CONFESSION
I. DEFINITION –S. 17
(2) confession An admission made at any time by a person accused of an offence, stating or
suggesting the inference that he committed that offence
(3) Subsection (2) shall have no application in Sarawak.
**Kalau statement tu dpt buktikan tu confession 17(2), automatically jadi admission 17(1)
**Court will only treat a statement as amounting to a confession if the accused admits to the
elements which constitute the offence
A. S. 17 (2) IS FURTHER CATEGORIZED BY SIR JAMES STEPHEN AS FOLLOWS
Confession
Admission
confession
Plenary confession
Full and direct
acknowledgement of guilt
(stating)
Ex: I killed Ricky
Non-Plenary Confession
Not a full and direct acknowledgment of guilt but is
an incriminating statement.
(suggesting)
Ex: I am owner of the gun which caused death.
All admissions are not confessions, but
all confessions are admissions.

2. 2
B. PAKALA NARAYANA SWAMI V KING-EMPEROR [1939]
Facts  Deceased received a letter from the accused wife on 20th March inviting them
to her house.
 The deceased told his wife that he was going to the accused house on 21st
March.
 On 23rd March, the deceased was found death. the deceased wife gave
evidence of the statement that the deceased stated that he was proceeding to
the accused house pursuant to the letter on 21st March.
Defence it was only hearsay and not a dying declaration. But court stated that it was a dying
declaration under s32 on the ground that it stated about the circumstances of the
transaction, which resulted in his death.
Held  When the hearsay is admissible to prove that something was said which may
account for or explain something done by a person in consequence of his
having heard or been told something.
 In this case the hearsay is admissible as part of res gastae it is not admitted as
evidence that what was heard is tru.
Principle Dr rama : kes ni terima category plenary je, kat Malaysia kita x pakai kes ni sbb
kita terima plenary and non plenary – so kita pakai kes anagonda yg terima both
juga
C. ANANDAGODA V THE QUEEN [1962]
Whether to the mind of a reasonable person reading the statement at the time and in the
circumstance in which it was made it can be said to amount to a statement that the accused
committed the offence or which suggested the inference that he committed the offence.
D. KES ANAGONDA DITERIMA KAT MALAYSIA : LEMANIT V PP [1965]
 Kes anagonda
fasal kes bunuh org melalui accident tapi the accused x pernah mengaku dia bawak kete
masa tu apatah lagi nak langgar org so no admission nor confession
 Kes lemanit
accused kata dia kena paksa bom kat Singapore, so mmg la dia x de nita nak cederakan org
sbb dia bomkan pin kat tempat takde org but the moment d ngaku dia bomkan tu
maksudnya at least dia suggest yang dia berniat nak menyebabkan kerosakan kat harta

3. 3
benda
II. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH CONFESSIONS ARE TO BE
EXCLUDED
A. PRINCIPLE
1. confession can be admitted unless keadaan2 dalam sek 24, 25, 26 ni berlaku,
so it becomes inadmissible
B. S. 24
A confession made by an accused is irrelevant if it appears to have been caused by inducement,
threat, promise

4. 4
1. The ITP must: (conjunctive) – try apply ngan kes lemanit semua ni
a) Relate to the charge against the accused
b) Proceed from a person in authority1
kes lemanit
(1) manner of speech2
or conduct of the person in authority
(2) penghulu / manager ada authority
c) The confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement,
threat or promise proceeding from a person in authority.
(1) kalau promise/ threat given by person yang xde authority-
admissible
1
Murugan v PP [1924] 5 FMSLR 108 (person in authority)
 The definition of person in authority is not defined in the Act.
 a supervisor of an estate is prima facie a person in authority and any inducement, threat or promises is
sufficient to vitiate confession.
2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR v NAIKAN [1961
"you had better tell the truth" is held to import a threat or promise

5. 5
d) Must be sufficient in the opinion of the court to cause in the mind
of accused belief for supposing that by making it he would gain any
advantage3
or avoid any evil
e) continued operation of the inducement, threat or promise – s. 28
(1) (rasa takut kena continuous)
(2) Mestila promise / takut something akan jadi kat dunia ni, kalau
takut masuk neraka/ janji masuk syurga, it not temporal!!
2. Oppression
a) xde dlm EA tapi selagi leh buktikan pengakuan dibuat secara x suka
rela, stll x admissible (voluntariness matters – DSAI v PP)
b) x dera physically tapi contoh x bagi makan, x bagi solat
c) so apa2 statement masa kelaparan atau gangguan emosi ni is not
admissible – (Dato Mokhtar Hashim v PP [1983] – kes x bagi makan n
tidor n x leh solat sbb pakaian x tutup aurat)
C. S. 25 & S. 26
25 Confession to police officer below the rank of Inspector not to be proved
no confession made to a police officer who is below the rank of Inspector by a person accused
3
R. v Thompson [1893] 2 QB 12
The acc was prosecuted for embezzlement of the funds of a company. When the affairs were being investigated, the
chairman of the company called the brother of the accused and told him that it will be better for the acc to tell the
truth and make a clean breast of things. The brother conveyed this to the accused. Subsequently, the accused
confessed to the charged. It was clear that he made the confession In the hope that he would be dealt with leniently,
the evidence of the confession was rejected.

6. 6
of any offence shall be proved as against that person.
26 Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him
no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is
made in the immediate presence of a Sessions Court Judge or Magistrate, shall be proved as
against that person.
1. IOW, s. 25 kalau pada inspector dan ke atas, admissible
2. IOW, s. 26 – walaupun dalam custody tapi kalau dibuat depan hakim, then
admissible
D. CPC AMENDMENT TO BE READ WITH PROVISIONS ON CONFESSION IN THE
EVIDENCE ACT
1. Police is no longer authorized to obtain ‘cautioned statement’ (amendment to
s 1124
& 113).
2. The word confession was deleted (amendment to s 113).
a) Although there are cases where the accused voluntarily ‘confessed” to
the police, such ‘confession’ is now treated as ‘statement’.
b) The statement can be used as evidence but not treated solely on its
own to warrant a conviction.
3. Magistrate is no longer authorized to record confession (amendment to s
115).
4
Statement masa polis amik statement (biasanya lepas FIR dibuat, polis akan identify witness utk amik statement)

7. 7
III. EXCEPTION S. 24 (SITUATIONS IN WHICH A CONFESSION BECOMES
RELEVANT)
A. S. 28 – BILA TPI DAH X DE
Section 28 - Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or
promise relevant
1) If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is made after the impression caused by
any such
2) inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the court, been fully removed, it is
relevant
B. S. 29
29 - Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy,
etc.
Element:-
a) The accused confessed on the basis of a promise that his confession would be kept secret,
b) or, because he was deceived into making a confession,
c) or, on account of being drunk at the time of making it,
d) or, because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered
e) or, because he was not warned that he was not obliged to make such a confession
IV. FACTS DISCOVEREDIN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION RECEIVED
- S. 27
S. 27 - How much of information received from accused may be proved
if the statement of the accused is supported by the discovery of a fact it may be presumed to be
true
It comes into operation only:
(a) when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information

8. 8
(b) such information is received from a person accused of any offence
(c) the person is in the custody of a police officer
(d) such information... as relates distinctly to the fact discovered
A. KONSEP –
1. apa2 fakta yang lead to discovery becomes ad 27missible because it is a
relevant fact not because it is a confession
B. PULUKURI KOTTAYA & ORS V KING EMPEROR [1947
1. I stab my wife – inadmissible sbb x lead pada apa2 discover
2. I hide spear(lembing) in the yard – admissible sbb lead to discovery
C. FRANCIS ANTONYSAMY V PP & PP V AZILAH BIN HADRI [2015]
1. Kalau polis mmg dah tahu fasal sth n accused pon cerita benda yang sama-
apa yg accused ckp tu not admissible sbb without the accused statement pon, polis
mmg dah tahu
V. CONFESSION OF CO-ACCUSED- S. 30
A. KONSEP
1. X bind the court tapi admissible cuz penting utk diambil kira
2. Sape confession, then that confession will bind him, meand dia boleh dituduh
atas sebb dah buat confession tapi doesn’t meand confession dia cukup untuk
convict kawan sejenayah dia gitu la

9. 9
B. FOR A CONFESSION TO FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF S. 30, THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS NEED TO BE FULFILLED:
1. There must be a joint trial for the same offence
Illustration
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 his 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.
2. The statement must be a confession
3. The confession of guilt must affect the maker to substantially the same extent
as his co-accused
4. The confession must be duly proved
C. DR. JAINAND V R [1949] – DATO MOKHTAR HASIM (KES OPRESSION TADI)
 The section says that the confession must affect them both. t does not say that it must
affect them both equally.
 It is clear from a long line of authorities that a confession of a co-accused is only an element
in the consideration of other evidence which evidence must be sufficient to support a
conviction.

10. 10
VI. RETRACTED OF CONFESSION
A. X DE DALAM EA SO TGOK KES
B. INDIA - RAM PRAKASH VS THE STATE OF PUNJAB
1. Lepas retract, mahkamah x leh convict dah
2. Melainkan ada independent corroboration
C. MALAYSIA- X SETUJU NGAN INDIA :YAP SOW KEONG V PP:
1. admissibility of retracted confession in evidence is clear, and put shortly it is
that an accused person can be convicted on his own confession, even when it is
retracted, it the court is satisfied of its truth.
Differences Between Admission & Confession
BASIS FOR
COMPARISON
CONFESSION ADMISSION
Meaning a formal statement by
which the accused admits
his guilt of a crime.
acceptance of truth or fact in
issue or a material fact in a
civil or criminal proceeding.
Proceeding Criminal only Civil or Criminal
Relevance It must be voluntary to be
relevant.
It need not be voluntary to be
relevant.
Retraction Possible Not possible

11. 11
Made by Accused Any person, who can be the
agent or even a stranger.
Use It always go against the
person making it.
It can be used on behalf of
the person making it.