Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab
AIR 1952 SC 354 · Supreme Court of India
A confession must be read as a whole; the court cannot accept the incriminating part and reject the exculpatory part unless there is other evidence.
Unit II · Law of Evidence
Admissions and confessions
Study aid only. Confirm statute numbers with the current bare Act and the official OU LL.B. (3-YDC) 2024–25 syllabus PDF.
Statute sections
| Act / instrument | Section | Name |
|---|---|---|
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | 15–21 | Admissions (IEA 17–23) |
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | 22 | Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise (IEA 24) |
| Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 | 23 | Confession to police officer and discovery of fact (IEA 25–27) |
Landmark cases
Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor
AIR 1947 PC 67 · Supreme Court of India
Only that much of the information as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered is admissible under the discovery exception; the rest of a custodial confession remains excluded.
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya
AIR 1960 SC 1125 · Supreme Court of India
The distinction between a person in police custody and one who is not, for the purpose of confessions, does not violate equality; the discovery exception is a limited door of admissibility.