22

Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding

24, 28 and 29, consolidated

Excludes an involuntary confession, with provisos restoring relevance in defined circumstances

23(1)

Confession to a police officer

25

Absolute exclusion

23(2)

Confession in the custody of a police officer

26

Exclusion, unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate

Proviso to 23(2)

Discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody

27

The single exception — so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered

24

Consideration of a proved confession affecting the person making it and others jointly under trial for the same offence

30

Permits the court to take it into consideration; it is not substantive evidence

25

Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop

31

Governs the effect of everything in Sections 15 to 24

⚠ A drafting change worth noting

The Adhiniyam makes two structural changes to this block. First, the word coercion is added to Section 22, which under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act spoke only of inducement, threat or promise — a genuine widening of the ground of exclusion. Second, the discovery rule, which was a free-standing Section 27, is now a proviso to Section 23(2). The substance is unchanged, but the drafting makes explicit that it is an exception carved out of the prohibition rather than an independent enabling provision, and it must be construed as an exception.

Section 22, BSA

A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority, and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

Provisos. — A confession is not irrelevant merely because the impression caused by the inducement, threat, coercion or promise has been fully removed in the opinion of the Court; nor merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make it and that evidence of it might be given against him.

1. An inducement, threat, coercion or promise

Any of the four suffices. 'Coercion' is new to the Adhiniyam and covers pressure falling short of a threat in the strict sense

2. Having reference to the charge

The inducement must relate to the accusation. A promise unconnected with the charge does not attract the section

3. Proceeding from a person in authority

A police officer, a magistrate, a prosecutor, an employer in relation to an employee, or any person whom the accused reasonably regards as able to influence the proceedings

4. Sufficient to give reasonable grounds for supposing an advantage or evil

Assessed from the point of view of the accused — what he could reasonably have supposed, not what the person in authority intended

5. Of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings

A worldly advantage or evil connected with the case. A purely spiritual exhortation is outside the section

The impression caused by the inducement has been fully removed

The confession is not irrelevant merely on that account

IEA Section 28

Made under a promise of secrecy

Not irrelevant merely on that account

IEA Section 29

Obtained by deception practised on the accused

The same

IEA Section 29

Made when the accused was drunk

The same

IEA Section 29

Made in answer to questions he need not have answered

The same

IEA Section 29

Made without a warning that he need not confess and that it might be used against him

The same

IEA Section 29

⚠ The provisos do not make such confessions safe

Each proviso says only that the confession is not irrelevant merely because of the circumstance mentioned. Relevance is not the same as weight. A confession obtained by deception, or from a drunken man, or without any warning, remains open to attack on the ground that it was not voluntary in fact, and the court assesses its reliability in the ordinary way. The provisos remove an automatic bar; they confer no presumption of trustworthiness.

Section 23, BSA — Confession to police officer

(1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

(2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved against him.

Proviso. — When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Confession made to a police officer, the accused not being in custody

No

Section 23(1) — the bar does not depend on custody

Confession made in police custody to a private person

No

Section 23(2) — the bar does not depend on the identity of the person addressed

Confession made in police custody in the immediate presence of a Magistrate

Yes

The exception in Section 23(2)

Confession recorded by a Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023

Yes, subject to compliance with the safeguards

Section 183, BNSS; a judicial confession

Information in custody leading to a discovery

In part — only so much as relates distinctly to the fact discovered

Proviso to Section 23(2)

Confession to a police officer, the maker not being an accused at the time

No, once he is an accused in the proceeding in which it is tendered

Section 23(1)

📖 Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119

Held: Where a first information report is lodged by the accused himself and amounts to a confession, the whole of it is inadmissible under the provisions corresponding to Sections 23(1) and 23(2) of the Adhiniyam. A confessional statement cannot be split up so as to admit the portions that are not directly self-incriminating; the ban applies to the confession as a whole, including the parts describing the motive, the preparation, the opportunity and the conduct. The only portion that may be proved is that which falls within the discovery provision.

Ratio: A confessional first information report by the accused is inadmissible in its entirety, save for the portion protected by the proviso.

📖 Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, (1976) 1 SCC 828

Held: The provision is analysed into its component conditions. The first is the discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of such fact must be deposed to. The third is that at the time of receiving the information the accused must be in police custody. The last is that so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible; the word 'distinctly' means directly, indubitably, strictly and unmistakably. The Court held that a portion stating that the accused had removed the articles from a particular place was not admissible, since it did not relate distinctly to the fact discovered.

Ratio: The leading modern analysis of the provision and the authority on the meaning of 'distinctly'.

📖 Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67

Held: The extent of the information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered. The fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to that fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery.

The classic example: where the accused says 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house with which I stabbed A', the words 'with which I stabbed A' are inadmissible. They relate to the past use of the knife, not to its discovery.

📖 State of Maharashtra v. Damu Gopinath Shinde, (2000) 6 SCC 269

Held: The 'fact discovered' embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, and the object itself. The decision in Pulukuri Kottaya is the most quoted authority on the subject and its interpretation continues to hold the field. The discovery of a fact may include the discovery that the accused had knowledge of a particular fact.

Ratio: The fact discovered comprises three elements — the object, the place, and the knowledge of the accused as to the place.

📖 Prabhu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 1113

Held: Where the information given by the accused led to the discovery of bloodstained clothes and a weapon, the portion leading to the discovery was admissible, but the accompanying assertion that the weapon was the one used in the commission of the offence was not. Self-incriminatory statements and narrative details which do not lead to the discovery of any new fact must be excluded.

Ratio: The admissible portion is severable, and the court must sever it rather than admit or exclude the statement as a whole.

'I will show the place where the knife is hidden'

Yes

Relates distinctly to the discovery and to the accused's knowledge of the place

'The knife is buried under the neem tree behind my house'

Yes

Identifies the place from which the object is produced

'with which I stabbed A'

No

Past use of the object, not its discovery

'which I took from the house of the deceased after killing him'

No

Past history of the object, and a confession of the offence

'I will show where I concealed the body'

Yes, as to the place and the knowledge

The body is discovered from a place known to the accused

'I killed him and concealed the body there'

First part no; the portion leading to the place yes

The confession of the killing is inadmissible; the rest is severable

The problem

A confession made in custody may have been extracted, and its truth cannot be assumed

The confirming event

Something previously unknown to the police is found in consequence of what the accused said

What is confirmed

That the accused had knowledge of the place or the object. The discovery vouches for the accuracy of that much of the information

How far the confirmation extends

Only to the fact discovered. It confirms nothing about the past use or history of the object, and nothing about the commission of the offence

Statutory expression

The words 'so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered'

⚠ What the discovery confirms, and what it does not

The recovery confirms knowledge, not guilt. That the accused knew where a weapon lay is consistent with his having used it, but equally with his having seen it concealed, or having concealed it for another. This is why the proviso admits only the portion leading to the discovery: the confirmation extends no further than the confirming event, and the remaining circumstances must connect that knowledge to the offence.

Section 24, BSA — Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence

When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.

Explanation 1. — 'Offence' as used in this section includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.

Explanation 2. — A trial of more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section.

More persons than one being tried jointly

A joint trial in fact. Where the co-accused is tried separately, or has been discharged or has died, the section does not apply

For the same offence

The same offence, including its abetment or attempt by force of Explanation 1

A confession made by one of them

It must be a confession within the judicial definition, and it must be admissible — a confession hit by Section 22 or Section 23 cannot be considered at all

Affecting himself and some other of such persons

It must implicate the maker as well as the co-accused. A statement that inculpates only the others and exculpates the maker is not within the section

Proved

The confession must be proved in the ordinary way before it can be considered

📖 Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159

Held: The confession of a co-accused is not evidence within the meaning of the definition. It cannot be made the foundation of a conviction. The proper approach is to marshal the other evidence first and to see whether, if it is believed, a conviction could safely be based upon it; the confession of the co-accused may then be used to lend assurance to that conclusion, but only for that purpose.

Ratio: The order of reasoning is fixed. The confession is taken up last, and only to lend assurance to a conclusion already reached on the other evidence.

📖 Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184

Held: A Constitution Bench held that a confession of a co-accused is not evidence as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not evidence because it is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused, and it cannot be tested by cross-examination. The section merely enables the court to take it into consideration, and such a confession can be used only to lend assurance to other evidence against the co-accused. Where the other evidence is insufficient, the confession cannot be pressed into service to make it sufficient.

Ratio: The leading Constitution Bench authority. The confession of a co-accused is not evidence, and it cannot supply a deficiency in the prosecution case.

Status

Substantive evidence, if voluntary and admissible

Not evidence. The court may only take it into consideration

Can it found a conviction?

Yes, subject to corroboration as a rule of prudence where retracted

No. It cannot be the foundation of a conviction

When is it taken up?

As part of the evidence against the maker

Last, after the other evidence has been marshalled and found sufficient

Function

Proves the facts admitted

Lends assurance to a conclusion already reached on other evidence

Provision

Sections 15 and 22 to 23

Section 24

⚠ Explanation 2 is new in substance

Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act contained no provision deeming a trial held in the absence of an absconding accused to be a joint trial. Explanation 2 to Section 24 supplies one, and links it to the proclamation procedure under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The practical effect is that the confession of a co-accused may now be taken into consideration against a person who has absconded and is being tried in absentia, which was a matter of difficulty under the earlier Act.

Content

Admits the offence or substantially all the facts constituting it

Need not amount to a confession at all — the proviso says 'whether it amounts to a confession or not'

Admissibility

Excluded by Section 23(1) and 23(2) where made to the police or in custody

Admissible under the proviso to Section 23(2), to the extent stated

Extent admitted

The whole statement, where admissible; and nothing, where excluded

Only so much as relates distinctly to the fact discovered

Requires a discovery

No

Yes — something previously unknown must be found

Requires custody

Section 23(2) applies where the maker is in custody

Yes — the accused must have been in the custody of a police officer

What it establishes

The offence, or the facts constituting it

Knowledge of the place or the object, and nothing more

Severability

A confessional statement cannot be split to admit favourable portions — Aghnoo Nagesia

The admissible portion must be severed from the rest — Prabhu

Confession — Meaning, Nature and Evidentiary Value

The definition of confession, its kinds, and the weight of each

Recovery as Circumstantial Evidence

The proviso to Section 23(2) treated as a circumstance in a circumstantial case

Conduct of the Accused as Circumstantial Evidence

The conduct route under Section 6(2) where the proviso fails

Admission — Meaning, Definition and Essentials

Confession as a species of admission

Section 25, BSA

Admissions and confessions are not conclusive proof

Section 6(2), BSA

Conduct of leading to a concealed article

Section 84, BNSS, 2023

Proclamation for an absconding person, referred to in Explanation 2 to Section 24

Section 183, BNSS, 2023

Recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate, including by audio-video electronic means

Section 105, BNSS, 2023

Audio-video recording of search and seizure