Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act: Confessions Caused by Inducement, Threat or Promise
A confession must be voluntary to be used against an accused person. Former Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 excluded certain confessions obtained through inducement, threat or promise. The current corresponding rule is Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which expressly includes coercion.
What did Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provide?
Section 24 made a confession by an accused person irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the court considered that the confession was caused by an inducement, threat or promise connected with the charge, coming from a person in authority, and sufficient to make the accused reasonably suppose that confessing would secure a temporal advantage or avert a temporal disadvantage in the proceedings.
This provision addressed the reliability and voluntariness of confessions. It did not mean that every confession, or every statement made after questioning, was automatically excluded.
Current provision: Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 22 - Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding. A confession is irrelevant when the court finds the statutory conditions concerning improper influence, a person in authority and a perceived benefit or harm relating to the charge to be satisfied.
Essential conditions for exclusion
- The statement must amount to a confession by an accused person in a criminal proceeding.
- The confession must appear to have resulted from inducement, threat, coercion or promise.
- The improper influence must relate to the charge and proceed from a person in authority.
- In the court's opinion, it must be sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds to expect an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature in relation to the proceedings.
Two important provisos under Section 22
1. Removal of the improper influence
If the court is satisfied that the impression caused by the inducement, threat, coercion or promise has been fully removed before a later confession is made, that later confession may be relevant, subject to other applicable rules of evidence.
2. Circumstances that do not automatically make a confession irrelevant
A confession otherwise relevant does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, after deception, while the accused was drunk, in response to questions the accused was not obliged to answer, or without a warning that the accused need not confess and that the confession could be used in evidence. This proviso does not override the rule excluding confessions actually caused by the prohibited influence.
Meaning of important legal expressions
Confession: A statement by an accused acknowledging guilt or substantially admitting the offence; whether a particular statement qualifies depends on its substance and context.
Inducement: An offer or suggestion of a benefit that influences an accused to confess.
Threat: A communicated prospect of adverse consequences intended to influence a confession.
Coercion: Improper pressure or compulsion capable of overcoming a person's free choice.
Person in authority: A person whose position or perceived influence over the proceedings can make the accused reasonably believe that a promised benefit or threatened consequence may follow.
Temporal advantage or evil: A worldly or practical benefit or harm associated with the criminal proceedings, rather than a merely spiritual consequence.
Examples of how the rule works
Example 1: An investigating official promises an accused that the case will be dropped if the accused confesses. If the statutory requirements are established, the confession is excluded.
Example 2: An accused later makes a fresh confession after the court is satisfied that the effect of an earlier threat has been fully removed. The later confession may be relevant, but other restrictions must still be considered.
Example 3: A statement made to a police officer may remain inadmissible under Section 23 BSA even if no inducement, threat or coercion is shown. The rules operate separately.
Related rules: Police confessions and criminal procedure
Section 23 BSA generally bars proof of confessions made to police officers against an accused, and regulates confessions made while in police custody. Its limited discovery-related proviso must be applied according to its own terms.
Under the earlier law, Sections 25 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act addressed these matters. Former Sections 28 and 29 dealt with removal of improper influence and circumstances not automatically invalidating otherwise relevant confessions; their subject matter is now incorporated in the provisos to Section 22 BSA.
Procedural safeguards for recording confessions must also be considered under the applicable criminal procedure law, including the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. A confession's admissibility is assessed on the facts and under all relevant statutory restrictions.
Official legal references
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - official India Code PDF (Sections 22, 23 and 170).
- India Code - Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
- Ministry of Home Affairs - New Criminal Laws.
Frequently asked questions
Is Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act still in force?
The Indian Evidence Act was repealed with effect from 1 July 2024, but the saving provision in Section 170 BSA continues its application to specified proceedings already pending immediately before that date.
Which current provision replaces Section 24?
Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 covers confessions caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise.
Does a voluntary confession to a police officer become admissible?
Not merely because it is voluntary. Section 23 BSA imposes separate restrictions on confessions to police officers and confessions made in police custody.
Legal information only. The admissibility of any particular confession depends on the evidence, the applicable statute and judicial findings.