07/08/2026
✅ *CONFESSION UNDER BSA, 2023 — SECTIONS 22 TO 24*
📌 *Meaning of Confession*
• Confession means an admission of guilt made by an accused person.
• The term “confession” has not been expressly defined under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Therefore, its meaning has mainly developed through judicial decisions.
◼️ *Sir James Stephen’s Definition*
• According to Sir James Stephen, “Confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed the crime.”
• This definition was followed by Indian courts until it was disapproved by the Privy Council in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939).
◼️ *Drawbacks of Sir James Stephen’s Definition*
• The words “at any time” made the definition too wide because they could include statements made even before the commission of the offence.
• A statement made before an offence generally shows only the intention to commit the offence and cannot itself amount to a confession.
• The definition was also wide enough to include an admission of subordinate or incriminating facts from which guilt could merely be inferred. Such a statement may create suspicion against the accused but does not necessarily amount to an admission of the offence itself.
• Therefore, Stephen’s definition could treat even an incomplete incriminating statement as a confession.
◼️ *Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939)*
• In Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor, Lord Atkin observed that a confession must either directly admit the offence or substantially admit all the facts which constitute the offence.
• Therefore, a confession means either a direct admission of guilt or an admission of substantially all the essential ingredients of the offence. This definition has been widely accepted by Indian courts.
📌 *Inculpatory and Exculpatory Statements*
• An inculpatory statement is a statement that incriminates the accused or indicates his guilt. An exculpatory statement is a statement that excuses the accused or indicates his innocence.
• *For example*, if A says, “I killed B, but I did so in private defence,” the statement “I killed B” is inculpatory, whereas “I did so in private defence” is exculpatory.
• *In Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939)*, Lord Atkin observed that a statement containing self-exculpatory matter cannot ordinarily amount to a confession where the exculpatory part negatives the offence.
• *In Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab (1952)*, the Supreme Court held that a confession should ordinarily be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole. The court cannot simply accept the inculpatory part and reject the exculpatory part.
• However, *in Nishikant Jha v. State of Bihar*, the Court held that where the exculpatory part is unbelievable and contradicted by other evidence, it may be rejected and the inculpatory part may be relied upon if it is corroborated by other evidence.
• Indian law does not strictly follow the principle “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,” meaning false in one thing, false in everything. Therefore, the court may accept the reliable part of a statement and reject the unreliable part.
📌 *Communication of Confession*
• Communication to another person is not necessary for a statement to amount to a confession.
• *In Sahoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, the Supreme Court held that a statement admitting guilt may amount to a confession even if it was not intended to be communicated to another person.
• Therefore, words spoken by an accused to himself and overheard by another person may amount to a confession. Similarly, an admission of guilt written by an accused in his private diary may also amount to a confession.
📌 *Kinds of Confession*
• Confessions are mainly of two kinds: Judicial Confession and Extra-Judicial Confession.
◼️ *1 Judicial Confession*
• A judicial confession is a confession made before a judicial authority.
• A confession recorded before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, or a plea of guilty made before a court during trial, are examples of judicial confession.
• A judicial confession has strong evidentiary value. If the court is satisfied that it is voluntary and true, it can form the basis of conviction.
◼️ *2 Extra-Judicial Confession*
• An extra-judicial confession is a confession made to a person other than a judicial authority. It may be made to a friend, relative, neighbour or any other private person.
• *In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1995)*, the Court held that an extra-judicial confession must be examined with great care and caution and should not be surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
• *In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003)*, the Court held that the reliability of an extra-judicial confession depends upon the credibility of the person before whom it was made.
• *In Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010)*, the Supreme Court emphasised that an extra-judicial confession should ordinarily be supported by other material on record.
📌 *Difference Between Judicial and Extra-Judicial Confession*
• A judicial confession is made before a Magistrate or Court, whereas an extra-judicial confession is made before a person other than a judicial authority.
• A judicial confession is proved through the judicial record, whereas an extra-judicial confession is generally proved by examining the person before whom it was made.
• A voluntary and truthful judicial confession has strong evidentiary value and may form the basis of conviction. An extra-judicial confession is comparatively weaker evidence and is generally examined with greater caution and supported by other evidence.
📌 *Confession Must Be Voluntary*
• A confession must be voluntary and truthful. A confession is voluntary when it is made freely without improper inducement, threat, coercion or promise.
• The reason for admitting a confession is that a person would ordinarily not make a statement against his own interest unless it were true. However, this reasoning does not apply where the confession has been obtained through pressure, fear or improper inducement.
• Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India provides protection against compelled self-incrimination. Therefore, an accused cannot be compelled to make a confession against himself.
📌 *Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat, Coercion or Promise - Section 22 BSA*
• Under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a confession becomes irrelevant if it appears to the Court that it was caused by an inducement, threat, coercion or promise having reference to the charge against the accused and proceeding from a person in authority.
◼️ *Essential Ingredients of Section 22*
▪️ *1. Confession Must Be Caused by Inducement, Threat, Coercion or Promise*
- There must be a connection between the inducement, threat, coercion or promise and the making of the confession.
- It is sufficient if it appears to the Court that the confession was caused by such influence. The Court considers all the facts and circumstances surrounding the confession.
- *In Vinod Solanki v. Union of India (2009)*, the Supreme Court emphasised that where a confession is relied upon, its voluntary character must be established.
▪️ *2. It Must Proceed from a Person in Authority*
- The inducement, threat or promise must proceed from a person in authority.
- *In Motilal v. Kailash Narain*, the Court observed that a person in authority is one who, because of his position, is capable of exercising influence over the accused.
- Depending upon the circumstances, a Magistrate, police or investigating authority, customs or excise officer, employer, village authority or another person having influence over the accused may be treated as a person in authority.
▪️ *3. It Must Have Reference to the Charge*
- The inducement, threat or promise must relate to the charge or criminal proceedings against the accused.
- *For example*, if an accused is told, “If you confess, the Court may give you a lighter punishment,” the promise directly relates to the criminal proceedings.
- However, a statement such as “If you confess, God will forgive you” does not ordinarily relate to the criminal charge or proceedings.
▪️ *4. Hope of Advantage or Fear of Evil*
- The inducement, threat or promise must be sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds to suppose that by confessing he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature in relation to the proceedings against him.
📌 *Confession After Removal of Inducement, Threat or Promise*
• Where the effect of an earlier inducement, threat, coercion or promise has been completely removed and the accused subsequently makes a voluntary confession, the later confession may be relevant.
• The Court must be satisfied that the earlier influence had actually ceased to operate on the mind of the accused before the subsequent confession was made.
📌 *Confession Made to Police Officer - Section 23(1) BSA*
• Section 23(1) provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of an offence.
• The purpose of this rule is to protect accused persons against the possibility of confessions being obtained through police pressure, coercion, torture or other improper methods.
• *In Queen Empress v. Babulal*, it was observed that the object of excluding police confessions is to prevent improper methods being used to obtain confessions for securing convictions.
◾ *Meaning of “Made to a Police Officer*”
• The confession must actually be made or communicated to a police officer.
• *In Punja Mava v. State*, a police officer was merely present in a crowd when the accused made the confession. Since the confession was not addressed to the police officer, it was not treated as a confession made to a police officer.
• *In Sitaram v. State of Uttar Pradesh*, the Court considered whether a confessional communication could actually be regarded as having been made to a police officer. The circumstances in which the statement was made and communicated are important.
📌 *Confession Made in Police Custody - Section 23(2) BSA*
• Section 23(2) provides that a confession made by a person while in the custody of a police officer cannot be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
• Thus, Section 23(1) deals with a confession made to a police officer, while Section 23(2) deals with a confession made while the accused is in police custody.
◾ *Meaning of Police Custody*
• Police custody is not limited to formal arrest or detention inside a police station. A person may be considered in police custody when his freedom of movement is restricted and he remains under police control or surveillance.
• *In Emperor v. Mallangowda*, an accused was taken to a dispensary for treatment while accompanied by police officers. He confessed to the doctor while the police officers were waiting outside. The confession was held to have been made while the accused remained in police custody.
• *In State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh (1997)*, the Court recognised that police custody may include constructive custody and is not necessarily dependent upon formal arrest.
• *In State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar (2008)*, the Supreme Court observed that a person who is arrested is necessarily in custody, but a person may be in custody without having been formally arrested.
📌 *Exception — Immediate Presence of Magistrate*
• A confession made while an accused is in police custody may be proved if it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
• The presence of the Magistrate acts as a safeguard against police coercion. The Magistrate must satisfy himself that the accused is making the confession voluntarily and without any threat, pressure, inducement or promise.
📌 *Discovery of Fact - Section 23 Proviso*
• The proviso to Section 23 creates an important exception relating to discovery of fact.
• Where information is received from an accused person in police custody and a fact is discovered as a consequence of that information, so much of the information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved.
• The entire confessional statement does not become admissible. Only the portion that distinctly relates to the fact discovered can be proved.
• For example, if the accused states that he has hidden the weapon used in the offence at a particular place and the police recover the weapon from that place, the portion of the statement distinctly relating to the location and discovery of the weapon may be proved.
◾ *Doctrine of Confirmation by Subsequent Events*
The discovery rule is based on the Doctrine of Confirmation by Subsequent Events. The subsequent discovery provides assurance regarding the truth of that part of the information which directly led to the discovery.
◾ *Essential Ingredients of Discovery*
• The information must be given by a person accused of an offence.
• The accused must be in police custody when the information is given.
• A fact must actually be discovered as a consequence of the information, and only that part of the information which distinctly relates to the discovered fact can be proved.
• The information may be proved to this limited extent whether it amounts to a confession or not.
📌 *Retracted Confession*
• A retracted confession is a confession which is subsequently withdrawn or denied by the accused.
• Courts treat a retracted confession with caution. The Court mainly examines whether the confession was voluntary and true and ordinarily looks for corroboration from independent evidence.
• *In Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963)*, the Supreme Court held that a retracted confession may still be used if the Court is satisfied that it was voluntarily made and was true.
• The timing of the retraction is also relevant. An immediate retraction may create doubt regarding the circumstances in which the confession was obtained, whereas a very late retraction may, depending upon the facts, be treated as an afterthought.
📌 *Confession of Co-Accused - Section 24 BSA*
• Section 24 deals with the confession of a co-accused.
• Where two or more persons are being jointly tried for the same offence and one of them makes a confession affecting himself as well as another accused, the Court may take such confession into consideration against the person making it as well as against the other accused.
• However, the confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against the other accused. Therefore, it is unsafe to convict another accused solely on the basis of such confession without independent evidence connecting him with the offence.
• The Court should first examine the independent evidence against the accused and may thereafter use the confession of the co-accused to lend assurance to the conclusion reached from that evidence.
