Victims Of False Confessions - An Overview
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
VICTIMS OF FALSE CONFESSIONS - AN OVERVIEW
Madhukrishna N, The Tamilnadu Dr Ambedkar Law University - School of Excellence in Law
ABSTRACT
Victims are persons, be it an individual or a group, who have suffered harm, loss, or injury caused by an act or omission which violates the criminal law. Such loss might me physical, psychological, emotional even deprivation of fundamental rights at some times. As this article is all about the victims of false confession. Whenever confession is concerned it is one of the most important elements which plays an important role in the proceedings of the criminal justice system. India is concerned Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam makes all the confessions inadmissible if they are obtained from a person using force, coercion, threats, etc. This paper tries to explain what really is false confession, how it has been got, causation of the false confession.
Further, this paper also includes several case laws and case studies that have happened worldwide due to false confessions leading to wrongful convictions and wrongful prosecutions. This paper concludes with the false confessions happening in India, which led to death, custodial torture, etc. Keywords: False confessions, wrongful conviction, wrongful prosecution, criminal justice system.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, we've seen a number of high-profile cases in the media where people were wrongfully convicted of serious crimes, only to be cleared later on. Confessions are often viewed as the most compelling evidence of guilt that the state can present against a suspect. Unfortunately, false confessions can also serve as the most damaging and misleading evidence against an innocent person1. In the criminal justice system, confessions are often used. They are strong and can be very damaging. As one legal expert said, "when a confession is presented, other parts of the trial are not needed2. " People still have a hard time believing that someone would admit to a crime they did not commit. But, false confessions are not new; they are still a big issue in criminal justice systems everywhere.
In fact, studies show that over 25% of wrongful conviction cases that were cleared by DNA evidence included a false confession. So, the commonness of false confessions shows that we need to look at the current research to find out what we do not know and what needs more study3. False confessions are a big problem for the criminal justice system. They hurt fairness, due process, and individual rights. People who give false confessions often face strong pressure, torture, or mental stress while in custody. This can make them admit to crimes they did not do. These forced confessions can lead to wrong convictions, long jail time, and serious problems for the accused and their families. In India, false confessions mostly hurt poor communities and weak individuals, showing issues like police violence and weak legal protections.
To help these victims, we need to understand the legal, social, and moral sides of false confessions. We also need strong ways to prevent, fix, and help them. This discussion looks at important cases, court responses, and policy ideas to protect the rights and dignity of people wrongly accused because of forced confessions.
VICTIMS OF FALSE CONFESSION
What is a confession? A confession can be strong proof that helps show someone is guilty. The suspect takes
1 Diksha Bhalla, ‘False Confessions Analysis’ (2021) 4(5) IJLMH 973-980.
2 Saul M. Kassin, “False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform” 17 Current Directions in Psychological Science 249 (2008).
3 S.kassin,” why confessions trump innocence” 67 American psychologists 431 (2012)
responsibility for actions that could have serious results, especially in big crimes. Because confessions are so important in law, they often cause arguments in court. Pretrial motions, trial discussions, and appeals after a conviction try to show that a confession was forced and should not be used. Sometimes, the focus is on whether an innocent person gave a false confession. A confession is when someone says they did a crime, knowing it is wrong. The confession
might include details that make the crime seem less serious, but it still admits to the crime as either the only person involved or as part of a group. A false confession happens when someone admits to a crime they did not do4. What is a false confession? A false confession is when someone says they did a crime they did not do. Even though it seems
strange, people can confess on their own, maybe to help someone else, or they can be forced to confess through tough questioning. Studies show that people with low intelligence or mental health issues are more likely to confess when they are pressured. Young people are especially at risk of confessing, especially when they are stressed, tired, or upset. They confess more often than adults. Many innocent people have been found guilty, sent to jail, and sometimes even given the death penalty after saying they did crimes they did not do. Later, they were proven innocent. It was not until some shocking false confession cases were shown to the public in the late 1980s, along with DNA evidence, that people started to see how many wrongful convictions there were and how often false confessions were involved. Most false confessions are forced, but some are made willingly.
Even though forced confessions are seen as not reliable enough for real convictions, more advanced psychological questioning methods can also lead to false confessions5. Who are victims? A victim is someone who is killed or faces bad luck because of someone else;
● a person who is hurt badly in their body or belongings due to harsh or unfair treatment: ● a person who is meant to suffer from some cruel or harmful force: 4 Michael Welner, Matt DeLisi and Theresa Janusewski, “False Confessions: An Integrative Review of the Phenomenon” 7 Forensic Sciences Research 1 (2022) 5 Brent E. Turvey and Craig M. Cooley, “Police Interrogations and False Confessions”, in Miscarriages of Justice: Actual Innocence, Forensic Evidence, and the Law 115–147 (Academic Press, 1st edn., 2014).
● a person who dies or gets sick from something they chose to do6. “‘Victims’ means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power7. ” Who are victims of false confession? People who falsely confess can hurt many others. These are individuals who face harm because of a lie about being guilty. The term "false confessor" usually means the person who lies, but many more people are affected. False confessions mess up the justice system, hurt innocent people, traumatize families, confuse investigators, and lower public trust in the law.
Knowing who is a victim is important for looking at wrongful convictions and suggesting changes. The clearest victim is the person who admits to something they didn't do. These people face serious problems, like being wrongly arrested, staying in jail for a long time, being looked down upon, feeling alone, having mental health issues, and sometimes getting life sentences or even the death penalty. Many who falsely confess are young people, those with lower intelligence, people under a lot of stress, or those who are pressured by police questioning. They are hurt not just during questioning but also during the whole legal process.
TYPES OF FALSE CONFESSIONS
False confessions are generally classified into three major types, as recognised in criminology and forensic psychology a. Coerced compliant false confession A coerced compliant false confession happens when a suspect admits to a crime to stop
threats or violence during questioning. This type of confession allows the interrogation to end quickly because it is so unbearable that the suspect ignores the possible legal consequences to protect their life or safety, or to remove a real threat. After the suspect 6Andrew karmen, crime victim : An introduction to victimology ( wadsworth publishing, 2003) 7 UN General Assembly, Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, GA Res 40/34, UN GAOR, UN Doc A/RES/40/34 (29 November 1985)
is free from questioning, they often take back their confession very soon. Coerced compliant confessions cannot be used in court, no matter if the suspect is guilty or innocent8. b. Internalized false confession A false confession that someone believes is true shows more about the person's traits
and the way they were questioned than about bad behavior from the police. This is why these false confessions might not be noticed until later in the legal process. At first, these were called coerced internalized confessions. But calling them 'coerced' is wrong because the person does not feel forced. Instead, the police convince the person that they are guilty, and over time, the person starts to believe this guilt during the questioning. False confessions happen when a suspect is shocked by a crime, is upset about the sudden death of someone they know, or is drunk or unconscious when the crime happened. All these things make it hard for the person to trust their own memory. These situations happen when the suspect thinks they are helping the police and that the police are on their side. The suspect does not see that the detective thinks they are guilty.
The police, wrongly believing this, suggest different stories about the crime. While being questioned, the suspect, not knowing they are a suspect, starts to take in details and believe a false story based on these suggestions. By the end of the questioning, the suspect has accepted a false story about their guilt and ends up confessing. Without memory distrust and being misled into thinking the police are allies, these false confessions do not happen. People who are easily influenced or do not know much about police methods are more likely to find themselves in situations where the police make them doubt their own memories9. c. Voluntary false confessions A voluntary false confession happens when a suspect wrongly says they did a crime
because of serious mental health issues. This can include wanting fame or bad attention, 8 F. E. Inbau, J. E. Reid, J. P. Buckley and B. C. Jayne, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington MA, 5th edn., 2013).
9 J. T. McCann, “Broadening the Typology of False Confessions” 53 American Psychologist 319 (1998)
especially in a well-known case, feeling too connected to a case or victim, having false beliefs about being involved in a crime, feeling guilty about someone who has died, or wanting a quick benefit from the justice system, like getting into jail for homeless people. These people tell the police about themselves. Sometimes, the person confessing may have a serious mental illness that makes them feel grandiose, which is shown in their false confession10. d. Leverage false confession A false confession can happen when police talk to different suspects and witnesses one
after another and use what they say against each other. An officer might tell one suspect that another suspect has been interviewed, has confessed, and has named this suspect as a main person in the crime. The other interview might have happened just as the officers say, and it is even more convincing if the suspects were together at the crime scene or involved in illegal actions. When one suspect says something bad about another, it puts pressure on the second suspect to say something that makes them look better and blames the first suspect. This method helps get confessions in many cases with more than one person involved. But, many innocent people have confessed to things they did not do because they thought the evidence from a peer (who admitted to some involvement) was too strong to fight against without trying to make themselves look better.
Police do not want to wrongly arrest many suspects any more than they want to arrest one innocent person. However, as more confessions come in, history shows that police can miss the fact that these confessions would not have happened if not for the pressure from those who are willing to admit to smaller roles. In this way, what helps when suspects are guilty can become a problem when they are innocent. Because police questioning in these situations can be very professional and get confessions without bad behavior, these false confessions might make it hard to accept that a confession is false when the investigation seems normal11. 10 F. E. Inbau, J. E. Reid, J. P. Buckley and B. C. Jayne, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington MA, 5th edn. , 2013). 11 S. M. Kassin and L. S. Wrightsman, “Confession Evidence”, in S. M. Kassin and L. S.
Wrightsman (eds. ), The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure 67–94 (SAGE, Thousand Oaks CA, 1985).
e. Protective false confession False confession cases happen in organized crime and gangs. Lower-level members admit to crimes done by higher-ups who stay in the community to keep leading. The person confessing might earn respect in the gang. If the confessing person is young or has no prior criminal record, the punishments are usually lighter than for an adult. A small study of Icelandic inmates who admitted to false confessions showed different
links with coerced compliant and coerced internalized false confessions compared to those made to protect someone else. Coerced false confessions are more linked to how much a person resists during questioning and how they see proof and outside pressure. Being on drugs was more common in protective false confessions than in coerced compliant ones12.
CAUSATION OF FALSE CONFESSION
There is no one reason for false confessions, and there is no one type of false confession. False confessions caused by police happen because of a long process of influence, persuasion, and pressure, and usually involve mental force. There are 3 main mistakes that happen during a police-led false confession, which can lead to someone being wrongly convicted. First, investigators wrongly think an innocent person is guilty; then they question him in a way that assumes guilt, using lies about evidence and often making vague promises and threats. After getting a false confession, they push the suspect to give a story that fits the crime, often mixing in facts about the crime. These mistakes are called the misclassification error, the coercion error, and the contamination error13.
The misclassification error The first mistake happens when police or detectives wrongly think that an innocent person is guilty. This is not honest because the law says, "innocent until proven guilty. " This is how false confessions start, because it happens when police focus on an innocent suspect. When certain suspects are chosen, police interviews and questioning are then based on the idea that they are
12 J. T. McCann, “Broadening the Typology of False Confessions” 53 American Psychologist 319 (1998)
13 Diksha Bhalla, “False Confessions Analysis” 4 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 973–
980 (2021)
guilty. The reason for these wrong choices is the mental ability and lack of proper training of these police officers and detectives. The coercion error When detectives wrongly label an innocent person as a guilty suspect, they often put him through a tough interrogation. When the interrogation starts, the main reason for false confessions caused by police is their strong psychological methods. Psychological pressure happens in two ways: "police use interrogation methods that are seen as very strong in psychology and law, or police use interrogation methods that, together, make a suspect feel he has no choice but to meet the interrogators' demands. " The contamination error Interrogators help to get a false confession by putting pressure on the suspect to agree with a certain story and by suggesting details about the crime to him.
This makes the suspect's story after admitting guilt less reliable. Unless he has heard about the crime from friends or the news, an innocent person would not know the simple or exciting details of the crime. The change in the suspect's story after admitting guilt is the third mistake in the three police errors that together lead to the creation of a false confession14.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR CONFESSIONS IN INDIA
The Basic Rule: Nemo Tenetur Se Ipsum Accusare Constitutional frame work : Article 20(3): Safeguard Against Self-Incrimination15 The fundamental principle of safeguarding against false confessions is encapsulated in Article 20(3): "No individual accused of a crime shall be forced to testify against himself." 14 R. Ofshe and R. Leo, “The Social Psychology of Police Interrogation: The Theory and Classification of True and False Confessions” 16 Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 189 (1997).
15 The Constitution of India, art. 20(3).
Consequences: ● Prohibits coerced confessions ● Safeguards the mental and physical independence of accused individuals ● Guarantees voluntariness as a crucial requirement ● Is applicable during police questioning and judicial proceedings The Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)16 confirmed that this right encompasses all forms of compelled testimony, including psychological coercion and scientific examinations. This rule means "no one has to accuse themselves. " It is the base of BSA's confession system. It helps to stop self-incrimination, making sure confessions are given freely and not forced. This matches with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution17, which says that people who are accused cannot be made to testify against themselves.
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty18 Article 21 broadens the scope of constitutional safeguards by stipulating: ● Equitable procedure ● Right to be free from torture ● Right to legal counsel ● Humane treatment while in custody Any confession acquired through torture or coercive interrogation is deemed a direct violation of Article 21. Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam, 2023 Section 22: Confession from pressure, threats, force, or promises, when not allowed in
16 Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263
17 The constitution of India, art.20(3)
18 The constitution of India, art.21
court: A confession from a person accused of a crime will not be accepted in court if the judge finds that it was gotten through: ● Pressure, threats, force, or promises. ● Actions by people in charge that relate to the case. ● Situations that would make the accused think that confessing would help them or keep them safe from harm. Main Exception: If the judge sees that any bad influence is completely gone before the confession, then the confession can be accepted. Second Exception: A confession that is still legally important does not stop being accepted just because it was: ● Made with a promise of privacy. ● Gotten by tricking the accused. ● Made when the accused was drunk. ● Given to questions that the accused did not have to answer. ● Made without proper warning about the right to stay quiet or how it could be used as proof19.
Section 2320 of the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam deals with the confession made to the police officer where No confession made to a police officer shall be admissible as evidence against an individual accused of any offense. Furthermore, no confession made by any individual while in the custody of a police officer shall be admissible against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate: Provided that if any fact is testified as having been discovered as a result of information
19 The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, s. 22
20 The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, s. 23
received from a person accused of an offense while in police custody, then that portion of the information, regardless of whether it constitutes a confession, which pertains specifically to the fact discovered, may be admissible as evidence.
INTERNATIONAL CASE STUDIES ON FALSE CONFESSIONS
False confessions represent one of the most concerning elements of the criminal justice system. Numerous instances exist of individuals who have confessed to crimes they did not commit, and various factors can contribute to this phenomenon. Whether it arises from coercion by law enforcement, psychological issues, or extreme pressure stemming from the circumstances, false confessions can happen regardless of the nature of the crime.
1. STURE BERGWELL CASE
One of the most infamous cases of false confession involves Sture Bergwall, a Swedish individual also known as Thomas Quick. Bergwall was perceived as a notorious serial killer due to the numerous confessions he made while residing in a mental institution. Bergwall faced numerous personal challenges and was far from blameless, possessing a criminal history that included drug abuse and molestation. He was admitted to a psychiatric facility following an armed robbery he committed in 1991. While under the influence of strong medications including benzodiazepines, Bergwall confessed to several murders that occurred over the years in Sweden, Finland, and Denmark. These confessions were made during therapy sessions at the psychiatric facility. Although Bergwall provided detailed accounts of the murders, his narratives contained inconsistencies and lacked supporting evidence.
Based solely on his confessions, Bergwall was convicted of eight murders and labeled a psychopathic serial killer. In 2008, he retracted all of his confessions. His convictions were subsequently overturned between 2009 and 2013. Bergwall’s case is regarded as one of the most significant and shocking miscarriages of justice in Scandinavian history21. 21 Ulf Stridbeck, “Coerced-Reactive Confessions: The Case of Thomas Quick” 20 Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice 305 (2020)
2. THE WEST MEMPHIS THREE CASE
The case of the West Memphis Three centers around a false confession that was obtained through coercion and manipulation. Damien Echols (18), Jason Baldwin (16), and Jessie Misskelley Jr (17) admitted to the gruesome murders of eight-year-old boys Christopher Byers, Steve Branch, and Michael Moore in West Memphis, Arkansas. The teenagers had some troubling backgrounds, including a history of minor criminal activities, mental health challenges, and issues with anger management. Echols, in particular, suffered from significant mental health problems and had a known fascination with the occult. His notoriety prompted local law enforcement to detain and question him, as they believed the crime had cult-like elements. Despite Echols being the group's leader, it was Misskelley Jr who provided the confession that ultimately unraveled the case.
However, Misskelley Jr was a minor who was interrogated without the presence of a lawyer or a parent, and he possessed an IQ of 72, which classified him as borderline intellectually disabled. He was subjected to pressure and was given information that made it easier for him to conform to the narrative presented by the officers. Additionally, he struggled to comprehend the legal implications of his arrest and interrogation. All three individuals were found guilty, with Echols receiving a death sentence while Baldwin and Misskelley Jr were sentenced to life in prison. It was not until 2011-18 years after their imprisonment, that they were exonerated through Alford plea agreements.
The assumptions made by law enforcement and the manipulation of a cognitively challenged teenager led to this false confession, serving as a continuing illustration of the deficiencies within the United States justice system22.
3. ROBERT HUBERT CASE
Robert Hubert serves as one of the earliest instances of a false confession. He admitted to igniting the Great Fire of London, a devastating inferno that ravaged a significant portion of
22 Gavin Lesnick, “Plea Reached in West Memphis Murders”, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Aug. 19, 2011
England’s capital in 1666. The conflagration originated on Pudding Lane within a bakery, yet the chaos and turmoil it caused led to rampant accusations. The populace sought a scapegoat, and Hubert fit that role perfectly. At the age of 26, Hubert was a watchmaker hailing from France, and he asserted that he had initiated the fire in Westminster. From the outset, this assertion was implausible, as the flames never reached Westminster. Furthermore, Hubert was not even present in England when the fire broke out. When he learned that the fire had begun in a bakery, he altered his story to claim that he had thrown a fire grenade through the bakery's window. Additionally, he alleged that he was an agent of the Pope and a French spy. Despite the implausibility of his assertions, Hubert was treated as a scapegoat and ultimately executed for the alleged crime.
The reasons behind Hubert's bizarre claims remain unclear; however, it is speculated that he may have been mentally unstable, unable to grasp the gravity of his statements, or perhaps he was merely seeking notoriety. Regardless of the motivation, Hubert faced the ultimate consequence, as his narratives were riddled with inconsistencies that rendered them absurd23.
4. BROWN VS MISSISSIPPI
False confessions have been a subject of considerable legal examination for almost a century, especially within the constitutional framework that governs criminal procedure and due process. One of the earliest and most significant judicial rulings on this matter is Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936). This case is recognized as a pivotal moment in American constitutional law because it unequivocally established that convictions based solely on coerced confessions are in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved three African American defendants: Arthur Ellington, Ed Brown, and Henry Shields, who were arrested and accused of murdering Raymond Stewart, a white man. The
23 Stephen Juan, “What Is a Confessing Sam?” The Register, Sept. 1, 2006
brutality they endured prior to their confessions remains one of the most shocking instances of state-sanctioned torture in the history of American law. Following the discovery of the victim’s body, Ellington was captured by a lynch mob that included local law enforcement officials. He was subjected to severe beatings, hanged from a tree, and repeatedly whipped. Despite this violence, Ellington initially resisted confessing. Although he was temporarily released, Ellington was soon taken back into police custody, where the torture continued. His already injured body was further beaten until, in extreme physical pain, he confessed solely to end the abuse. Brown and Shields were also arrested and subjected to brutality beaten with a leather strap that had a buckle until their statements matched what the investigators wanted to hear.
The assaults only ceased when their so-called confessions were considered sufficiently satisfactory. The trial court accepted these confessions as evidence, and based almost entirely on them, all three defendants were convicted and sentenced to death. When the case was brought before the Mississippi Supreme Court, the convictions were upheld despite the clear documentation of the violent methods used to extract the statements. Upon review, the U. S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the decision, asserting that a conviction cannot be upheld if it is founded on a confession obtained through torture or coercion imposed by State officials. The Court stated that such actions are "abhorrent to the sense of justice" and inconsistent with the essential tenets of due process as outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, Brown v.
Mississippi established the constitutional principle that involuntary confessions, especially those acquired through physical violence, are not permissible in criminal trials24.
5. ASHCRAFT VS TENNESSEE
Ashcraft v. Tennessee (1944) was about the murder of Zelma Ashcraft. E. E. Ashcraft and John Ware were found guilty. Ware was guilty of murder, and Ashcraft was an accessory after the fact. They both got 99-year sentences. They both appealed, saying their confessions were forced. Ware said he confessed because he was scared of mob violence like in Brown v. Mississippi (1936). Ashcraft said his confession was due to the harsh police questioning. The
24 Brown v. Mississippi, 297 US 278 (1936).
Tennessee Supreme Court did not accept these claims and kept the convictions. Later, the U.S. Supreme Court changed Ashcraft’s conviction. They said the way he was questioned was very coercive. Ashcraft was held without contact for 36 hours, questioned continuously by different officers, and not allowed to rest or sleep. Justice Black, who wrote for the Court, said these conditions were not compatible with free and voluntary choices. He said the situation was “so inherently coercive that its very existence is irreconcilable with the possession of mental freedom by a lone suspect.” This decision created a legal rule that interrogation methods can be unconstitutional even if there is no physical force, if the situation itself is coercive. This case expanded the protections against forced confessions25.
6. LEYRA VS DENNO
Leyra v. Denno (1954) was about Camilo Leyra, who was accused of killing his old parents. The police let him have some privileges, like going to the funeral and staying at a hotel, but they also made him go through long 10-hour questioning sessions. When Leyra said he had bad sinus pain, the police brought in a “doctor” who was really a psychiatrist trained in hypnosis. This psychiatrist used mind tricks to get a confession from Leyra, which helped convict him. Later, the New York Court of Appeals said the conviction was wrong because it was forced, but Leyra was tried again and found guilty again based on more confessions from the same time. The U. S. Supreme Court reversed the decision again, saying all the confessions were bad because they came from one long, forced process with too much questioning and mind tricks.
Justice Black pointed out that Leyra, who was already tired, was made to feel like he was in a “trance-like submission” because of the psychiatrist’s special methods. This ruling showed that using mind tricks in questioning, especially by trained people, is a form of coercion and goes against due process26.
7. MIRANDA VS ARIZONA
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) consolidated four cases, Miranda, Vignera, Westover, and Stewart, addressing the coercive nature of custodial interrogation. Justice Warren held that
25 Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 US 143 (1944).
26 Leyra v. Denno, 347 US 556 (1954).
incommunicado police questioning creates an inherently intimidating environment that undermines the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. To counter this compulsion, the Court required mandatory procedural safeguards, now known as the Miranda warnings. Before interrogation, suspects must be clearly informed of: ● The right to remain silent, ● That statements can be used against them in court, ● The right to consult an attorney and have one present, and ● The right to appointed counsel if indigent. Interrogation must stop if the suspect invokes these rights at any time. The Court held that these warnings are prerequisites for the admissibility of any statements, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, obtained during custodial interrogation.
The decision established a foundational doctrine ensuring that confessions are voluntary and constitutionally protected against coercive police practices27.
FALSE CONFESSION: A JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE IN INDIA
Though Indian laws governs the false confessions under the Major criminal laws, there are certain cases where the accused person have been put to situations to accept the false allegations of the crime which they did not commit. Toofan Singh vs State of TamilNadu The appellant, Toofan Singh, was taken by officers from the National Crime Bureau (NCB) for breaking the NDPS Act. The officers used their powers from Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which allows them to ask for information from anyone suspected of breaking the law. In this case, the officers wrote down a confession from the appellant, where he said he had drugs and was moving them.
27 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966).
But later, the appellant took back his confession, saying it was made under pressure. Even with this retraction, the Additional Special Court under the NDPS Act accepted the confession as proof and found the appellant guilty. In reply, the appellant went to the Madras High Court, saying his conviction was only based on a retracted confession that should not have been accepted as proof. The High Court rejected the appeal, leading the appellant to go to the Supreme Court. In an important decision made by the three judges bench , the Supreme Court decided to support the appellant, with a majority of 2 to 1. The Court stated that confessions made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as evidence because they go against the basic rights of the person under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Indian Constitution28. P. Jeyaraj and Bennix Felix (Shopkeepers) - S. Felix Jeyaraj v.
State of Tamil Nadu (2020,
Madurai HC suo motu): They were arrested on June 19, 2020, in Sathankulam for breaking curfew rules; they were tortured badly to get them to say things, and they died between June 22 and 23 with a total of
77 injuries. The magistrate sent them to jail even though they had clear wounds; the CBI
investigation found that the statements made under pressure were not valid according to section 24-25. This case is important for showing how false inquiry stories can hide the use of force in custody, highlighting violations of self-incrimination rights under Article 20(3)29.
FALSE CONFESSION CASE IN TAMILNADU
Rajakannu was a member of the Irular tribe from Tamil Nadu. He was arrested in 1993 because the police thought he stole something in Cuddalore district. The police hurt him while he was in custody to make him confess, which caused his death. They lied and said he tried to escape. His wife, Parvathi, asked lawyer K. Chandru for help and filed a habeas corpus petition. This led to finding out that he was murdered in custody after they dug up his body and found signs of torture. After a long fight in court that lasted from 2004 to 2006, the Madras High Court decided it was a murder by the police. They gave the officers 14 years in prison and also gave
28 Toofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1
29 Times Now News, “Timeline of Custodial Deaths of Jayaraj and Bennix Felix in Tamil Nadu” (Dec. 4, 2024) https://www.timesnownews.com/mirror-now/article/timeline-of-custodial-deaths-of-jayaraj-and-bennix-felix-intamil-nadu/613755 (last visited on 06/12/2025).
Parvathi some money and land30. This case shows how false confession victims suffer because police pressure made Rajakannu "confess" to stealing while being tortured. This is similar to retracted or forced confessions that are not valid under Sections 24-26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The made-up story of escape covered up the death caused by the confession, showing how custodial abuse happens. Vulnerable tribal people are pushed to admit guilt even when there is no proof. This highlights the failures in the system to stop false confessions caused by torture, similar to Supreme Court cases like Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani31that protect against self-incrimination.
REMEDY FOR THE VICTIMS OF FALSE CONFESSIONS
MONETARY COMPENSATION: Rajakannu Vs.State of Tamil Nadu and Ors32. The High Court told the State of Tamil Nadu to pay money to the victims of custodial violence in this case like this: To the wife (Petitioner – R. Parvathi): ● ₹1,10,000 total ● ₹10,000 to be given in cash right away ● ₹1,00,000 to be invested for her, so she gets at least ₹1,000 every month Assignment of land: ● The government must give her patta (land assignment) for the land she lives on ● If that land is not enough, she must get at least half a ground in her village limits To my little girl – Chinnaponnu ● ₹25,000 will be invested. She will get the full amount with interest only: when she turns
30 Rajakannu v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1977) 3 SCC 77
31 Nandhini satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424
32 Rajakannu v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1977) 3 SCC 77
18 and when she gets married
To other victims ● Achi (another victim woman) ₹50,000 ● Kullan (stepson of Achi) ₹25,000 ● Ravi (minor son) ₹10,000 ● Mariappan ₹10,000 ● Rathinam ₹10,000 ● Govindarajan ₹10,000 ● Kolanchi (minor) ₹10,000, this was the monetary compensation given to the victims of the rajakannu cases where the victims were forcefully and brutally tortured to accept the theft case which they did not commit33 The case of Palanisamy and Raju v. State of Tamil Nadu34 is an important decision made by the Supreme Court of India on January 24, 1986. This case is about the conviction of two people, Palanisamy and Raju, who were found guilty of murder and other crimes under the Indian Penal Code. The main issues are about how trustworthy confessions are, how reliable eyewitness accounts are, and how the idea of reasonable doubt is used to get a conviction.
The appellants, Palanisamy and Raju, were first found guilty by the Sessions Court of Erode for crimes under Sections 436 (arson) and 302 (murder) of the IPC, along with Section 34 (common intention). The High Court agreed with Raju's conviction but cancelled Palanisamy's conviction. The appellants asked for special permission to appeal to the Supreme Court against this shared decision. The Supreme Court carefully looked at the evidence, especially the confessions of the accused and the statements of important witnesses (PWs 4, 5, and 6). The Court found big doubts about the trustworthiness and consistency of the witnesses' statements 33 Rajakannu v State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. , MANU/TN/0991/1994, H. C. P. No. 711 of 1993, decided on 01-08-
1994 (Madras HC)
34 Palanisamy and Raju v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1986) 1 SCC 593
and how the confessions were taken.
TERRORISM AND FALSE CONFSSIONS
Many known wrongful convictions in India are related to terrorism cases. Often, suspects are found guilty based on confessions made outside of court, which raises worries that these confessions might be false and forced. This indicates that the rules allowing extrajudicial confessions in India should be looked at again. Exceptions to normal procedures increase the risk of justice being wrongly served, especially in terrorism cases that often have special rules that benefit the state35. The Akshardham Temple case36 is one of the most prominent examples, where innocent people were convicted after a brutal terrorist attack that killed 33 people. The Supreme Court eventually overturned all convictions, emphasizing that in shocking and emotionally charged cases, judges must exercise “more than ordinary care” to avoid being influenced by public pressure.
Across many terrorism-related wrongful convictions, recurring problems appear: forced or false confessions, suggestive and unreliable eyewitness identification, weak forensic evidence, lack of proper corroboration, and even failures in translating crucial documents. These cases highlight not only universal causes of wrongful convictions but also unique aspects of India’s system, such as the Supreme Court’s exceptional power under Article 136 to review factual findings and openly criticize investigative failures. False and forced confessions have been a big part of wrongful convictions in terrorism cases in India. This is especially true where special laws like POTA and TADA made exceptions to the rule that confessions made outside of court cannot be used. The Swaminarayan Akshardham Temple Case, State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai37, is a very important example.
In this case, the Supreme Court changed the convictions of six people after finding that their confessions made in police custody were not voluntary and were taken without following Sections 32 and 52 of POTA. The Court pointed out that there was no independent proof of the retracted confessions and called the investigation “casual” and done “with impunity. ” In the same way, in Nalini v. State (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case), (1999)38, the Supreme Court said that a confession under TADA must be carefully checked and cannot be the only reason for a conviction unless 35 Kent Roach, “Wrongful Convictions, Wrongful Prosecutions and Wrongful Detentions in India” NLSIR (2024) 36 Bruce MacFarlane, “Convicting the Innocent: A Triple Failure of Justice” 31 Manitoba Law Journal 403 (2006).
37 State of Gujarat v. kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108
38 Nalini v. state of Tamil Nadu (1999) 5 SCC 253
it is voluntary and backed up by evidence. These decisions show that the Court understands that forced confessions hurt fair trial rights and increase the chance of wrongful convictions in terrorism cases. Courts have often said that the strong pressure to solve terrorism cases can lead to problems like coercion, torture, and false confessions. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab39, the Supreme Court agreed with some parts of TADA but warned that police confessions should be handled with "great care and caution" because of the real chance of coercion. More recently, in the 1993 Mumbai blast case, the Supreme Court in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra40, rejected several confessions as not voluntary and said that a retracted confession cannot support a conviction without trustworthy evidence. The Delhi High Court in Mohd. Shahid v.
NCT of Delhi41 also cancelled a terrorism conviction where the only proof was a confession made in custody and weak eyewitness identification, saying that "suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of proof. " These cases show that false confessions are a major reason for wrongful convictions in terrorism cases, and that strict rules are needed to stop innocent people from being punished under special national-security laws.
277TH LAW COMMISSION REPORT ON WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS
The Law Commission of India’s Report No. 277 (August 2018) looks at wrongful prosecution and the resulting miscarriage of justice in India. It points out that the current legal system does not have any laws for compensation or help for people who are wrongfully arrested, held, or prosecuted. The report was started by a direction from the Delhi High Court in the case of Babloo Chauhan v. State42. The Commission mentions that while Indian courts sometimes give money relief under constitutional laws, this relief is not guaranteed, is rare, and varies a lot. There is no specific law like those in other countries. The Report examines the idea of miscarriage of justice in a broad way. This includes wrongful arrest, bad or careless investigations, unjust detention, long periods of being held without trial, and wrongful convictions. It finds that the harm these people
39 Kartar singh v. state of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569
40 Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1.
41 Mohd. Shahid v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2015) 215 DLT 650
42 Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, CRL.A. 157/2013, Delhi High Court, order dated
30 Nov. 2017 (247 (2018) DLT 31)
suffer, such as loss of freedom, stigma, loss of income, and long-term social effects, is a serious violation of their basic rights and human dignity. The Report shows that India has a very high number of under trial prisoners, about 67%. Many of these people stay in jail for months or years before they are found not guilty. This means that being held without trial is like punishment without a conviction, which is unfair. The Commission looked at how other countries like the UK, USA, Germany, New Zealand, and Australia handle compensation. It found that India is behind in following global human rights rules and needs new laws quickly. The Commission suggests making a new law that clearly defines wrongful prosecution, sets up court processes for compensation, provides financial help and support, and holds state agencies accountable.
A draft amendment to the CrPC (2018) is included to help start compensation and support measures. This would be India's first official step to create a system to help those wrongfully prosecuted and protect innocent people from serious legal and social damage43.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
In India, victims of false confessions face not just the immediate fallout of wrongful convictions, but also a heavy burden of lasting psychological trauma, social stigma, and financial struggles. While monetary compensation and judicial acquittals play a vital role in offering some relief, they often don't fully tackle the complex injustices these individuals endure. To truly address and prevent false confessions, we need a thorough, victim-focused approach. First off, we must enforce institutional reforms like mandatory audio and video recording of all custodial interrogations. This would promote transparency and help protect against coercive tactics. It's crucial that we strictly follow established protocols, such as the DK Basu guidelines, which call for timely appearances before magistrates, proper documentation of arrests, and the presence of independent witnesses.
These steps are essential to deter custodial abuse. Moreover, law enforcement officers should receive regular training on human rights to cultivate respect for constitutional protections and reduce the reliance on coerced confessions. 43 Law Commission of India, Report No. 277, Wrongful Prosecution (Miscarriage of Justice): Legal Remedies (August 2018)
On another note, victims need immediate and ongoing access to legal aid, psychological support, and rehabilitation programs that cater to their specific physical and emotional needs. This kind of comprehensive care can help them reintegrate into society and heal, lessening the negative social and economic effects of false confessions. It's also vital to combat social stigma through public apologies, restoring civil rights like access to jobs and education—and creating special legal measures for clearing their records. All of this is crucial for restoring the dignity of those affected. To truly make a difference, we need to strengthen accountability mechanisms. It's essential to have independent bodies that can investigate cases of custodial torture and hold offending officers accountable. This is key to breaking the cycle of impunity.
Establishing Special Courts, as suggested in the Law Commission Report 277 (2018), would create a faster and more accessible route to justice for those who have been wronged. On top of that, turning the recommendations from Report 277 into law would solidify the rights of victims and ensure that responses are consistent and fair across the country. To support this, we should also launch public awareness campaigns and implement judicial monitoring to ensure that cases of false confessions are recognized and addressed promptly. In summary, safeguarding victims of false confessions calls for a well-rounded approach that combines legal, institutional, rehabilitative, and educational strategies. Only by embracing these comprehensive reforms can India truly honor its constitutional promise of justice, protect human dignity, and build public trust in its criminal justice system.