Confession evidence in bribery cases requires admission of the offence itself; inference alone cannot sustain conviction.

The SC held that alteration of the conviction from Section 165A IPC to Section 161 read with Section 109 IPC was not illegal, as it introduced no new factual basis, caused no prejudice, and the charge defect was curable. It further held that writings relied on by the prosecution were not confessions because they did not admit the offence itself or all material facts constituting bribery; they merely allowed an inference of guilt and were equally consistent with the appellant having been cheated. In the absence of other proof of the essential ingredients, the conviction for abetment of bribery could not stand, and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 161 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (ii) Whether the appellant's writings were confessions so as to sustain the conviction for abetment of bribery.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to Section 161 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The alteration did not introduce any new factual basis requiring further notice to the accused, because the legal effect of the amended conviction was substantially the same so far as abetment of an actually committed offence was concerned. The punishment under the two formulations was the same, and any defect in the charge was a matter governed by the curative provisions relating to errors in charge, especially where no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The contention was rejected and the alteration of conviction was not held to be illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's writings were confessions so as to sustain the conviction for abetment of bribery.

Analysis: A confession must admit the offence itself, or at least all the facts that constitute it; a statement that merely raises an incriminating inference does not suffice. The two writings relied upon by the prosecution were examined as a whole, but they did not contain a plenary admission that the money was paid as a bribe or that the appellant knowingly abetted the offence. They were capable of supporting an inference of guilt, yet they equally admitted the possibility that the appellant had been cheated and had no criminal intention when making the payment. In the absence of other evidence proving the essential ingredients, the writings could not lawfully be treated as confessions.

Conclusion: The writings were not confessions and the conviction could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside because the prosecution failed to prove guilt through admissible confession evidence, and the appellant was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: A statement is not a confession unless it admits the offence itself, or substantially all the facts constituting it; a document that merely suggests an inference of guilt cannot by itself sustain a conviction.

---