BACK TO IEA 1872
IEA 1872Chapter III

Section 24

Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat or Promise

Of Admissions
Quick Legal SummaryBSA BSA S.22
Statutory Snapshot
Scope / Offence
N/A — Admissibility rule
THE STATUTE

Original Text

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 reasonable grounds 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.

Legal Commentary

Section 24 establishes the voluntariness doctrine for confessions — a confession is only relevant (admissible) if made voluntarily. An involuntary confession — extorted by inducement, threat, or promise — is irrelevant regardless of its truth. **Three cumulative conditions for inadmissibility:** 1. *Inducement, threat, or promise:* Something was offered or threatened to the accused to make them confess. 'Inducement' includes promises of favour — 'if you confess, you'll get bail'; 'threat' includes threats of harm — 'confess or we'll arrest your family'; 'promise' includes assurances — 'if you tell us the truth, nothing will happen to you.' 2. *From a person in authority:* The inducement/threat must come from someone who has authority over the accused in respect of the matter — typically a police officer, magistrate, or employer. Promises from co-accused or strangers don't activate Section 24. 3. *Reasonable grounds to suppose advantage:* The accused must have had reasonable grounds to believe that making the confession would gain them temporal advantage (lighter sentence, bail) or avoid temporal evil (harsh treatment, harm to family). **Why 'irrelevant' not just 'inadmissible'?** Section 24 makes involuntary confessions 'irrelevant' — a stronger exclusion than inadmissibility. An inadmissible piece of evidence might become admissible if the procedural obstacle is overcome; an irrelevant fact has no bearing on the proceedings. The court cannot use an involuntary confession for any purpose — not even to test credibility of other evidence. **Contrast with Section 25 (confession to police):** Section 25 creates an absolute bar on confessions to police officers — regardless of voluntariness. Section 24 creates a conditional bar — if the confession was voluntary (no inducement/threat/promise from person in authority), it is relevant even if made in police custody (which is why Section 26 adds a further custody restriction). **The truth is irrelevant:** If a confession was involuntarily obtained, it is inadmissible even if true. This reflects the constitutional values — under Article 20(3), no person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against themselves.

Legislative Intent & Background

Section 24's voluntariness requirement has colonial roots — British courts developed it to address coercive colonial policing. But its constitutional reinforcement under Article 20(3) of the Constitution makes it a fundamental rights provision, not merely a technical evidence rule. The BSA preserves it unchanged.

Critical Provisions & Changes

BSA Section 22 preserves IEA Section 24 verbatim.

Renumbered from S.24 to S.22.

No substantive change — voluntariness requirement identical.

Landmark Judicial Precedents

Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963)

AIR 1963 SC 1094

Supreme Court held that Section 24 requires consideration of the circumstances to determine if the accused had reasonable grounds to believe they would gain advantage. The test is objective — would a reasonable person in the accused's position have that belief?

State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh (1964)

AIR 1964 SC 358

Held that a confession made after a promise by a police officer that the accused would be made an approver (state witness) is inadmissible under Section 24 — the promise of approver status is an inducement from a person in authority.

Practical Scenarios & Illustrations

Police officer tells accused: 'confess and you'll get bail' — accused confesses. Inadmissible under S.24: promise (bail) from person in authority (police officer) — accused had reasonable grounds to believe confession would gain temporal advantage.

Co-accused tells accused: 'confess and I'll help you' — confession may be voluntary because co-accused is not a 'person in authority' for S.24 purposes.

Questions & Answers

Yes — this is one of the most important intersections in confession law. Even if a confession is inadmissible under Section 24 (involuntary) or Section 25 (made to police), the information in the confession that leads to the discovery of a fact is admissible under Section 27 (now BSA Section 23(2)). The part of the statement that relates to the discovered fact ('I hidden the weapon under the brick') can be proved even if the rest of the confession is inadmissible.
IEA Section 24 is renumbered as Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. BSA Section 22 preserves the voluntariness doctrine verbatim: any confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority remains irrelevant and strictly inadmissible in criminal trials.

Related Statutory Provisions

Section 17
Admission Defined
Section 25
Confession to Police Officer (BSA Section 23)
Section 26
Confession in Police Custody (BSA Section 23)
Section 27
Discovery of Fact from Accused (BSA Section 23 Proviso)