Sections 22 to 25 – Confessions & Admissions (Indian Evidence Act)
Focus on voluntary confessions, police‑related bars, use of co‑accused confession, and the evidentiary value of admissions with estoppel.
Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat, Coercion or Promise
Voluntariness rule
A confession in a criminal case is irrelevant if obtained by inducement, threat, coercion, or promise from a person in authority such that the accused reasonably believes confession will bring a benefit or avoid harm.
- Inducement: promise of benefit or leniency.
- Threat: fear of harm if accused does not confess.
- Coercion: pressure/force (physical or mental).
- Promise: expectation of help or advantage on confessing.
- Police officer.
- Magistrate.
- Government or other authority figure.
When Confession Can Still Be Used
Fine‑tuning
Even if initial pressure existed, a later confession becomes admissible if the court is satisfied that:
- The inducement/threat/coercion has been fully removed.
- The later confession is truly voluntary.
A voluntary confession does not become irrelevant merely because:
- There was a promise of secrecy.
- It was obtained by deception.
- The accused was intoxicated (unless free will is gone).
- It was in answer to a question he need not have answered.
- He was not warned it may be used against him.
Confession to Police Officer / in Police Custody
Police bar
As a general rule, confessions made to a police officer or while in police custody are inadmissible, unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
- Confession to police is inadmissible.
- Confession in police custody is inadmissible even if made to someone else, unless before a Magistrate.
- Presence of Magistrate is a safeguard for voluntariness and against abuse of power.
- To prevent forced, fabricated, or coerced confessions.
- To curb misuse of police powers and protect fair trial rights.
Discovery Rule – Portion Leading to Discovery
Big exception
Only that portion of the accused’s statement which distinctly relates to the discovery of a new fact or object is admissible; the rest of the confession remains barred.
- Police‑made confession = generally inadmissible.
- However, if part of that statement leads to discovery of new material fact/object, that part can be proved.
- Only the “discovery‑link” words are admissible, not the whole confession.
Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor (1947): Privy Council held that only the part of a statement that distinctly relates to discovery is admissible; the rest is excluded.
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar: reiterated that extra‑judicial confession is barred except to the limited extent of discovery.
Use of Proved Confession Against Maker and Co‑Accused
Weak corroborative use
In a joint trial, a proved confession of one accused that implicates both himself and others may be considered against the co‑accused, but only in a limited way.
- There must be a joint trial (two or more persons tried together for same offence).
- Confession must be proved and must affect the maker himself.
- It should also implicate the co‑accused.
- It is not compulsory for the court to rely on it; use is discretionary.
- Not substantive evidence.
- Can be used only for corroboration or to assist in appreciating other evidence.
- Cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
- Explanation 1: “Offence” includes abetment and attempt.
- Explanation 2: Even if one accused has absconded or is separately tried later, it can still count as “joint trial” context for this provision where applicable.
Kashmira Singh v. State of MP (1952): confession of co‑accused is not substantive evidence and cannot alone support conviction.
Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964): reconfirmed that co‑accused confession is weak evidence, usable only as a supporting circumstance.
Admissions – Not Conclusive, May Operate as Estoppel
Value of admissions
- Admissions are strong but not final proof.
- They can be explained, retracted, or disproved by other evidence.
- Court weighs them with all surrounding circumstances.
- If a person makes a statement and another reasonably relies on it and changes position, the maker may be estopped from denying it later.
- So, admissions can create estoppel in appropriate cases, binding the maker.
Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwal v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (1960): admissions are powerful evidence but not conclusive; they can create estoppel when relied upon.
Union of India v. Moksh Builders (1977): estoppel applies where the other party has acted on the admission and altered their position.
- Write: “strong but not conclusive”.
- Mention: “can be rebutted, but may bind as estoppel if relied upon”.
- Illustrate with one simple reliance example if time permits.
Quick Revision Table – Sections 22 to 25
| Section | Core rule for answer | Keyword / Idea |
| 22 | Confession by inducement, threat, coercion or promise from person in authority is irrelevant (non‑voluntary confession barred). | Voluntary only |
| 22 (provisos) | Becomes relevant if influence fully removed; not invalid merely due to secrecy, deception, mild intoxication, or lack of warning, if voluntary. | Effect removed |
| 23 | Confession to police or in police custody is inadmissible, unless made before Magistrate. | Police bar |
| 23 – Disc. | Only statement portion leading to discovery of a fact/object is admissible; rest remains barred. | Discovery rule |
| 24 | In joint trial, proved confession of one accused may be used against co‑accused, but only as weak corroboration, not sole basis for conviction. | Co‑accused confession |
| 25 | Admissions are strong but not conclusive proof; may operate as estoppel when relied upon by another party. | Estoppel potential |