Section 29 Evidence Act: Confession Under Secrecy, Deception or Without Warning
Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dealt with confessions that remain relevant despite a promise of secrecy, deception, intoxication, unnecessary questioning or absence of a warning. The corresponding rule now appears in the second proviso to Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
What did Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provide?
Under former Section 29, a confession that was otherwise relevant did not become irrelevant merely because of any of the following circumstances:
- It was made under a promise of secrecy.
- It resulted from deception practised on the accused to obtain the confession.
- The accused was drunk when making it.
- It was given in response to questions the accused was not obliged to answer, irrespective of the form of those questions.
- The accused was not warned that a confession was optional or that it might be used in evidence against the accused.
The words otherwise relevant are essential: Section 29 did not make every confession admissible. Other statutory bars and constitutional safeguards still had to be satisfied.
Current law: second proviso to Section 22 of the BSA, 2023
Section 22 addresses confessions caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise in criminal proceedings. Its main rule excludes a confession where the specified improper influence from a person in authority appears to have caused it. The first proviso permits relevance after the court finds that the effect of that influence has been fully removed. The second proviso carries forward the substance of former Section 29.
In substance, the second proviso provides that an otherwise relevant confession is not excluded merely because it was made under secrecy, through deception, while intoxicated, in response to questions that need not have been answered, or without a warning about its use.
Read the authoritative statutory text in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (India Code, official PDF).
Meaning of important legal expressions
Confession
A statement by an accused acknowledging guilt, or substantially admitting facts constituting the offence. A mere incriminating admission is not necessarily a confession; its legal character depends on its content and context.
Otherwise relevant
The confession must satisfy all other applicable rules of admissibility. The second proviso removes only the stated reasons for exclusion; it does not validate a statement prohibited by another law.
Promise of secrecy
An assurance that the statement will be kept confidential. Such an assurance, standing alone, is not the same as an inducement promising an advantage or avoidance of harm in the criminal proceedings. The actual circumstances remain decisive.
Deception
Misrepresentation or trickery used to obtain a statement. The second proviso does not automatically exclude a confession for deception alone, but a court must still examine voluntariness, coercion, authority and other legal restrictions.
Important limits and safeguards
- Inducement, threat or coercion: Section 22 excludes confessions meeting the statutory test for improper influence. The second proviso cannot be read in isolation from that main rule.
- Confessions to police officers: Section 23(1) BSA generally prohibits proving a confession made to a police officer against the accused.
- Police custody: Section 23(2) BSA generally bars confessions made while in police custody unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, subject to the statutory discovery-related proviso.
- Discovery of facts: The proviso to Section 23(2) permits proof only of that portion of information which relates distinctly to a fact discovered in consequence of information received from an accused in police custody.
- Constitutional rights: Article 20(3) of the Constitution protects an accused from being compelled to be a witness against themselves; Article 21 safeguards fair procedure.
- Magisterial recording: Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 prescribes safeguards concerning confessions and statements recorded by a Magistrate.
Practical illustrations
Example 1: Promise of confidentiality
A suspect voluntarily admits an offence to a private individual after being told the conversation will remain confidential. The promise of secrecy alone does not make the confession irrelevant. Its admissibility depends on all the surrounding circumstances and other legal rules.
Example 2: Statement obtained through a trick
A private person misrepresents their knowledge of events, and the suspect makes an incriminating confession. Deception by itself is not an automatic exclusion under the second proviso. However, the court must assess the applicable statutory and constitutional safeguards.
Example 3: Confession to a police officer
A suspect confesses directly to an investigating police officer. The second proviso to Section 22 does not remove the bar in Section 23(1). The confession cannot be proved against the accused merely because it was voluntary or made without a warning.
Example 4: Intoxication
A person confesses while intoxicated. Intoxication alone is not a statutory reason for exclusion under the second proviso. Whether the statement is reliable and otherwise admissible is a separate question for the court.
Old and current provisions
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 |
|---|---|
| Section 24: confession caused by inducement, threat or promise | Section 22: main provision, expressly also referring to coercion |
| Section 28: confession after improper influence is fully removed | Section 22: first proviso |
| Section 29: otherwise relevant confession despite secrecy, deception, intoxication or lack of warning | Section 22: second proviso |
| Sections 25 to 27: police confession, custody and discovery | Section 23 and its proviso: corresponding restrictions and discovery rule |
Does the old Evidence Act still apply to pending cases?
Section 170 of the BSA repeals the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and provides a savings rule for applications, trials, inquiries, investigations, proceedings and appeals pending immediately before the commencement of the BSA. For such matters, the earlier Act may continue to govern in accordance with that savings provision. The applicable regime should be determined from the procedural history of the particular matter.
Frequently asked questions
Is a confession made under a promise of secrecy admissible?
It is not excluded merely because secrecy was promised. The confession must still be otherwise relevant and not barred by Section 22, Section 23 or another applicable rule.
Can a confession made while drunk be used in court?
Intoxication alone does not automatically make an otherwise relevant confession inadmissible under the second proviso to Section 22. Reliability and other admissibility issues remain open.
Does a confession become valid simply because no warning was required?
No. The absence of a warning is not, by itself, a ground for exclusion under this proviso. Special safeguards, including those for police and Magistrate-recorded confessions, still apply.
What replaces Section 29 of the Evidence Act?
The corresponding current rule is the second proviso to Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
Official legal references
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - official India Code text (Sections 22, 23 and 170).
- India Code - Government of India statutory database (search for the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
- Constitution of India - Legislative Department (Articles 20 and 21).
This article is general legal information, not advice on the facts of any particular criminal case. Always consult the applicable statute and case record.