A confession is an admission made by a person accused of an offence, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that offence. It is the strongest form of evidence against an accused, but because of the grave risk of coercion, the law subjects it to stringent conditions of admissibility.
BSA S.22 = IEA S.24 (confession by inducement, threat or promise). BSA S.23(1) = IEA S.25 (confession not relevant if made to police officer). Wait: this mapping needs care. BSA S.22 (second proviso) = IEA S.29 (confession otherwise relevant not irrelevant because of promise of secrecy). BSA S.22 (first proviso) = IEA S.28 (confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement). BSA S.24 = IEA S.30 (confession by co-accused). BSA S.23(1) = IEA S.25 (confession to police officer). Confidence: verified against concordance.
What Is a Confession?
The BSA does not define "confession." The definition comes from case law:
Confession Distinguished from Admission
| Basis | Confession | Admission |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Only the accused | Any party or specified person |
| Content | Admits guilt of the offence charged | Suggests an inference about any fact in issue |
| Context | Criminal proceedings | Civil or criminal |
| Every confession is an admission | Yes | But not every admission is a confession |
| Example | "I stabbed B and he died" (admits all elements of murder) | "I was at B's house that night" (admits presence, not guilt) |
Exclusionary Rules: When Confessions Are Inadmissible
S.22: Confession by Inducement, Threat or Promise
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 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.
Elements for Exclusion (All Must Be Present)
| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Inducement, threat or promise | Something held out to the accused |
| Having reference to the charge | Connected to the criminal proceedings |
| Proceeding from a person in authority | Police, magistrate, employer in certain contexts |
| Sufficient to give reasonable grounds | The accused reasonably believed making the confession would benefit him or avoid harm |
| Temporal advantage or evil | Relating to the proceedings, not spiritual or purely emotional |
S.22 (second proviso): What Does NOT Make a Confession Irrelevant
A confession otherwise relevant does not become irrelevant merely because:
- It was made under a promise of secrecy
- It was obtained by a deception practised on the accused
- The accused was drunk when he made it
- No warning was given that the accused was not bound to confess
- No oath was administered
Why: These situations do not involve the coercive pressure that S.22 targets. A person who confesses thinking it will be kept secret has still confessed voluntarily. The exclusion in S.22 is specifically about inducement creating a reasonable belief in temporal advantage or evil.
S.22 (first proviso): Confession After Removal of Impression
A confession made after the impression caused by the inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the court, been fully removed, is relevant.
This means: if an accused was initially induced (making the first confession inadmissible), but later confesses after the pressure has been removed (e.g. after being produced before a Magistrate with adequate time and warning), the later confession may be admissible.
Confession by Co-Accused (S.24)
"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."
Key Points on S.24
| Point | Content |
|---|---|
| Only in joint trial | S.24 applies only when persons are tried jointly for the same offence |
| "May take into consideration" | This is weaker than "is relevant." It cannot be the sole basis of conviction |
| Must be a proved confession | The confession must itself be admissible (voluntary, not excluded by S.22 or S.23(1)) |
| Affecting both | The confession must affect both the maker and the other accused |
| Corroboration needed | A conviction cannot rest solely on the confession of a co-accused; it needs corroboration |
Retracted Confession
A retracted confession is one which the accused first makes and then withdraws, saying it was false or coerced.
| Principle | Content |
|---|---|
| A retracted confession is not automatically worthless | The court may still act on it if satisfied it is voluntary and true |
| Corroboration is required | A conviction on a retracted confession alone is unsafe; corroboration is needed |
| The court examines the circumstances of making and retracting | If made before a Magistrate with proper safeguards and retracted only at trial, the court may rely on it |
Judicial Confession vs Extra-Judicial Confession
| Basis | Judicial Confession | Extra-Judicial Confession |
|---|---|---|
| Made before | A Magistrate under S.183 BNSS (= S.164 CrPC) | Any person other than a Magistrate (friend, relative, neighbour) |
| Reliability | High (safeguards: warning, cooling off, recording procedure) | Lower (no formal safeguards) |
| Admissibility | Admissible if voluntary | Admissible if proved (the person to whom it was made testifies) |
| Weight | Strong | Weaker; requires careful scrutiny |
| Retraction | If retracted, court may still rely if circumstances show voluntariness | If retracted, much weaker |
Recall Check
- Define "confession" as per Pakala Narayana Swami.
- What three conditions must be present for S.22 to exclude a confession?
- Can a conviction rest solely on a co-accused's confession?
- What is the evidentiary value of a retracted confession?
Key Cases
Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor (1939) Pakala Narayana Swami v Emperor 1939
Issue: Definition of confession.
Rule: Must admit the offence or substantially all facts constituting it.
Held: A mixed statement is not a confession unless it admits guilt on the whole.
Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab (1952) Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab 1952
Issue: Whether a statement with exculpatory matter is a confession, and whether part of it can be used.
Rule: A statement that would negative the offence if its exculpatory part is true is not a confession; a statement must be read as a whole.
Held: The statement was not a confession and could not be split to use only the inculpatory part.
Distinctions
| Basis | S.22 (Confession by Inducement) | S.22 (second proviso) (What Does Not Exclude) |
|---|---|---|
| Excludes | Confessions caused by inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority | Nothing; S.22 (second proviso) lists things that do NOT make a confession irrelevant |
| Promise of secrecy | Not an inducement under S.22 | Expressly stated not to exclude (S.22 (second proviso)) |
| Deception | Not an inducement under S.22 | Expressly stated not to exclude (S.22 (second proviso)) |
| Drunkenness | Not relevant to S.22 (which requires inducement from authority) | Does not exclude (S.22 (second proviso)) |
| Key difference | S.22 targets external coercive pressure. S.22 (second proviso) confirms that other circumstances not amounting to coercion do not exclude |
| Basis | Confession (S.22 to S.24) | Admission (S.15 to S.21) |
|---|---|---|
| Who | Accused only | Any party |
| What | Admits guilt | Suggests any inference |
| Exclusionary rules | Strict (S.22: inducement; S.23(1): police officer; S.23(2): custody) | Minimal |
| Use against co-party | S.24: "may take into consideration" only | Admissions bind the maker directly |
| Weight | Strongest evidence against the accused | Less than a confession; not conclusive |
Flashcards
Define "confession" as per Pakala Narayana Swami.
A statement which either admits in terms the offence, or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence.
What does S.22 exclude?
Confessions caused by inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority, sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds for supposing he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature.
Can a co-accused's confession alone sustain conviction?
No. Kashmira Singh v State of MP (1952): it is very weak evidence, can only lend assurance to other independent evidence.
What is the status of a retracted confession?
Not automatically worthless. The court may rely on it if satisfied it was voluntary and true, but corroboration is required for safety.
Name three things that do NOT make a confession irrelevant (S.22 (second proviso)).
Promise of secrecy, deception practised on the accused, drunkenness at the time of making.
Exam Scenario
Problem: Accused Ajay is arrested for murder. The investigating officer tells him: "If you confess, I will recommend to the judge that you get a lighter sentence." Ajay confesses to the IO. Later, Ajay is produced before a Judicial Magistrate. The Magistrate gives him a warning that he is not bound to confess and that anything he says may be used against him. After a cooling period of 24 hours, Ajay again confesses before the Magistrate. At trial, Ajay retracts both confessions. Advise on the admissibility of each.
Step 1: Test the first confession (to IO)
| Element of S.22 | Application |
|---|---|
| Inducement | Yes: "lighter sentence" is a promise of temporal advantage |
| From a person in authority | Yes: investigating officer |
| Having reference to the charge | Yes: relates to the murder proceedings |
| Sufficient to give reasonable grounds | Yes: a promise of lighter sentence from the IO is a reasonable ground to confess |
Additionally, S.23(1) (= IEA S.25) separately excludes confessions made to a police officer. The first confession is doubly inadmissible: (1) induced (S.22); (2) made to a police officer (S.23(1)).
Step 2: Test the second confession (to Magistrate after cooling)
| Element | Application |
|---|---|
| Made before a Judicial Magistrate | Yes |
| Warning given | Yes: told he is not bound to confess |
| Cooling period | 24 hours between the inducement and this confession |
| S.22 (first proviso): impression fully removed? | The Magistrate gave a warning and 24 hours elapsed. The court must assess whether the impression of the IO's promise has been fully removed |
Under S.22 (first proviso), if the court is satisfied that the impression caused by the IO's inducement was fully removed by the time of the Magistrate's recording, the second confession is admissible.
The 24 hour gap, the change of venue (from police station to court), and the Magistrate's warning all support the conclusion that the impression was removed.
Step 3: Address the retraction
Ajay retracts both confessions at trial.
| Confession | Effect of retraction |
|---|---|
| First (to IO) | Already inadmissible; retraction is irrelevant |
| Second (to Magistrate) | Retraction does not automatically exclude it. The court examines whether it was voluntary and true. Corroboration from other evidence is needed for safety |
Step 4: Summarise
| Confession | Admissible? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| First (to IO) | No | S.22 (inducement) + S.23(1) (to police officer) |
| Second (to Magistrate) | Yes (if S.22 (first proviso) satisfied) | Impression fully removed; recorded with safeguards |
| Retraction | Does not exclude the second confession | Court may rely on it with corroboration |
S.23(1) independently excludes the first confession. Even without the inducement problem (S.22), a confession to a police officer is inadmissible under S.23(1). Both exclusions apply, but S.23(1) alone is sufficient.
S.22 (first proviso) requires the impression to be "fully removed." If the 24 hours and the Magistrate's warning are insufficient (e.g. the accused was still in police custody when produced), the second confession may also fail. The test is whether the accused was truly free from the earlier coercive influence.
Conclusion. The first confession is inadmissible (S.22 + S.23(1)). The second confession is admissible if the court is satisfied the S.22 impression was fully removed (S.22 (first proviso)). Retraction does not exclude it but requires corroboration.
See Also
- Confession to Police Officer and Discovery : the detailed treatment of S.23(1)-(2) and the S.23 discovery proviso.
- Admissions : confessions as a subset of admissions.
- Dying Declarations : statements of dying persons, which overlap where the maker dies after confessing.