Section 22 BSA: Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat, Coercion or Promise

Section 22 BSA explains when a confession obtained through improper influence becomes irrelevant in criminal proceedings and when such a confession may be considered.

Introduction

Confessions can play an important role in criminal proceedings because they may contain statements admitting guilt or substantially acknowledging the commission of an offence. However, a confession must satisfy the applicable legal requirements before it can be relied upon against an accused person.

Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) protects accused persons against confessions caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise in circumstances specified by law. The provision requires the court to examine the connection between the influence and the charge, whether the influence originated from a person in authority, and whether it could reasonably lead the accused to expect an advantage or avoidance of harm connected with the proceedings.

The section contains two provisos. The first deals with a subsequent confession made after the impression caused by the earlier influence has been fully removed. The second identifies circumstances that do not, by themselves, make an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant, including a promise of secrecy and deception.

Understanding Section 22 is essential for law students, judiciary aspirants and legal practitioners because it distinguishes between a confession affected by prohibited influence and a confession that may be considered under the applicable rules of evidence.

Bare Act: Section 22 BSA

22. Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.—

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, coercion 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:

Provided that if the confession is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat, coercion or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant:

Provided further that if such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.

Source: Section 22, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Meaning of Section 22 BSA

Section 22 establishes a rule for excluding confessions obtained through specified forms of improper influence when the statutory conditions are satisfied.

A confession is a statement by an accused person that admits guilt or substantially admits the offence. Whether a particular statement qualifies as a confession depends on its substance and context. An admission of an isolated fact, such as presence at a crime scene, does not necessarily amount to a confession.

The main rule under Section 22 applies when the confession appears to have been caused by an inducement, threat, coercion or promise that:

• Relates to the charge against the accused.
• Proceeds from a person in authority.
• Is sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds to believe that confessing would secure an advantage or avoid a temporal harm connected with the proceedings.

These requirements must be considered together. A confession is not automatically excluded under Section 22 merely because it was made to an official, in custody or without a warning.

Essential Elements of Section 22 BSA

1. A confession by an accused person

The statement must qualify as a confession made by an accused person in a criminal proceeding.

For example, a person accused of theft states that they took the property intending to steal it. Depending on the precise statement and circumstances, it may amount to a confession.

By contrast, merely admitting that the accused was present at the scene does not necessarily admit the commission of the offence.

2. Inducement, threat, coercion or promise

The confession must appear to have been caused by one of the forms of influence identified in the provision.

Inducement: An offer or influence intended to encourage the accused to confess.

Threat: An express or implied prospect of adverse consequences intended to compel a confession.

Coercion: Pressure or compulsion that causes the accused to confess and satisfies the statutory requirements.

Promise: An assurance of an advantage or favourable treatment intended to influence the accused.

The court must examine the nature of the influence and its connection with the confession.

3. Reference to the charge

The inducement, threat, coercion or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused.

An unrelated offer or threat does not automatically satisfy this requirement. The influence must bear the connection with the criminal proceedings contemplated by the provision.

4. Influence proceeding from a person in authority

The influence must originate from a person in authority. The court must consider the person’s position and the circumstances in which the statement was obtained.

The mere fact that someone interacted with the accused does not automatically establish that the person qualifies as a person in authority for this purpose.

5. Reasonable expectation of an advantage or avoidance of harm

The influence must be sufficient, in the court’s opinion, to give the accused grounds that would appear reasonable for supposing that confessing would secure an advantage or avoid a temporal harm connected with the proceedings.

For example, an authority figure may promise favourable treatment if the accused admits the offence. Whether this satisfies Section 22 depends on the complete statutory test and the evidence.

Explanation of Inducement, Threat, Coercion and Promise

Inducement

Inducement occurs when an accused person is encouraged to confess through an offer or influence connected with the charge.

Example: An official tells an accused person that admitting the offence will result in favourable treatment in the proceedings.

If the inducement satisfies the statutory requirements and causes the confession, Section 22 may render the confession irrelevant.

Threat

A threat involves the prospect of an adverse consequence intended to influence the accused into confessing.

Example: An official threatens to arrange unlawful harm to the accused’s family unless the accused admits the offence.

Also Read: Section 27 BSA: Relevancy of Evidence in Subsequent Proceedings

If the threat originates from a person in authority, relates to the charge and satisfies the remaining requirements, the confession is irrelevant under Section 22.

Coercion

Section 22 expressly includes coercion as a ground for excluding a confession.

Example: An accused person is subjected to coercive pressure by an authority figure and confesses because they reasonably believe that doing so will prevent further harm connected with the proceedings.

The court must examine whether the coercion caused the confession and whether all the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Promise

A promise may involve an assurance of a benefit or favourable treatment intended to influence the accused.

Example: An official promises that the accused will receive favourable treatment in the criminal proceedings if the accused confesses.

The court must assess the nature of the promise, its connection with the charge, the authority of the person making it and the reasonable expectation it creates.

Not every statement about a possible benefit automatically constitutes a prohibited promise under Section 22.

First Proviso: Confession After Removal of Improper Influence

The first proviso provides that a confession becomes relevant if it is made after the impression caused by the earlier inducement, threat, coercion or promise has been fully removed, in the opinion of the court.

The requirement is full removal of the earlier influence.

The passage of time alone does not necessarily establish that the influence has disappeared. The court must assess whether the accused remains affected by the original inducement, threat, coercion or promise.

Example

An accused initially confesses after an official threatens adverse consequences unless the accused admits the offence.

Later, the threat is withdrawn, and the court is satisfied that the impression created by it has been fully removed before a subsequent confession is made.

The subsequent confession may be relevant under the first proviso, subject to the other applicable rules of evidence.

Importance of the first proviso

The proviso recognises that an earlier improper influence does not necessarily make every subsequent confession permanently irrelevant. However, the court must be satisfied that the impression has been fully removed.

Second Proviso: Circumstances That Do Not Automatically Make a Confession Irrelevant

The second proviso identifies circumstances in which an otherwise relevant confession does not become irrelevant merely because of a specified feature.

1. Promise of secrecy

A confession does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy.

Example: An accused person makes a statement after being assured that the conversation will remain confidential.

The promise of secrecy alone does not trigger exclusion under this part of Section 22. The other applicable rules of evidence must still be satisfied.

2. Deception practised to obtain the confession

A confession does not become irrelevant merely because deception was practised on the accused for the purpose of obtaining it.

Example: An investigator uses a deceptive pretext to encourage an accused person to speak.

Deception alone does not make the confession irrelevant under the second proviso. However, the court must still examine whether the main rule of Section 22 or another statutory provision independently excludes the confession.

3. Confession made when the accused was drunk

The provision states that an otherwise relevant confession does not become irrelevant merely because it was made when the accused was drunk.

This does not mean that every statement made while intoxicated is reliable or admissible. The court must still consider the applicable evidentiary requirements and the circumstances in which the statement was made.

4. Confession in answer to questions the accused was not bound to answer

A confession does not become irrelevant merely because it was made in response to questions the accused was not legally bound to answer, whatever the form of those questions.

The fact that an accused was not obliged to answer a question is distinct from whether the confession was obtained through prohibited influence.

5. Absence of a warning

A confession does not become irrelevant merely because the accused was not warned that they were not bound to confess and that evidence of the confession might be given against them.

This provision does not make every confession admissible regardless of the circumstances. A confession satisfying the main rule of Section 22 may still be excluded, and other statutory restrictions may independently apply.

Difference Between the Main Rule and the Two Provisos

Provision	Legal effect	Essential requirement
Main rule	Makes a qualifying confession irrelevant	Specified influence from a person in authority, connected with the charge and creating a reasonable expectation of advantage or avoidance of harm
First proviso	Allows a subsequent confession to be relevant	The impression caused by the earlier influence must have been fully removed
Second proviso	Identifies circumstances that do not alone make an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant	The specified circumstance must not be confused with an independent ground of exclusion

The provisos must be read with the main rule. They do not remove the statutory protection against confessions caused by qualifying improper influence.

Practical Examples of Section 22 BSA

The following examples are explanatory and are not statutory illustrations.

Example 1: Confession following a threat

An investigating official threatens an accused person with serious adverse consequences unless the accused confesses to theft. The accused confesses because of the threat.

If the threat satisfies the requirements of Section 22, the confession is irrelevant in the criminal proceeding.

Principle: A confession caused by a qualifying threat from a person in authority is excluded.

Example 2: Promise of favourable treatment

An authority figure promises an accused person favourable treatment in the criminal proceedings if the accused admits the offence.

Also Read: Section 24 BSA: Consideration of Proved Confession Affecting Person Making It and Others Jointly Under Trial

The court must determine whether the promise relates to the charge, originates from a person in authority and creates the reasonable expectation described in the provision.

Principle: A qualifying promise may render the resulting confession irrelevant.

Example 3: Subsequent confession after removal of influence

An accused initially confesses after being threatened. Before making a subsequent confession, the accused is no longer affected by the earlier threat, and the court finds that the impression has been fully removed.

The subsequent confession may be relevant under the first proviso, subject to the applicable rules.

Principle: The first proviso requires full removal of the earlier influence.

Example 4: Promise of secrecy

An accused makes a confession after being assured that the conversation will remain secret.

The promise of secrecy alone does not make an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant under the second proviso.

Principle: A promise of secrecy is not, by itself, a ground for exclusion under this proviso.

Example 5: Confession obtained through deception

An investigator uses a deceptive pretext to obtain a statement from an accused person. The statement amounts to a confession.

Deception alone does not make an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant under the second proviso. The court must nevertheless examine whether another statutory rule excludes it.

Principle: Deception must be distinguished from an inducement, threat, coercion or promise satisfying the main rule.

Relevant Case Laws on Confessions

Section 22 BSA combines the subject matter of Sections 24, 28 and 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Decisions interpreting the former Act may assist in understanding the principles of voluntariness and improper influence, but they should not be described as direct interpretations of Section 22 BSA.

1. Laxman Padma Bhagat v. State, AIR 1964 SC 1007

Legal principle: The Supreme Court considered the requirements of Section 24 of the former Evidence Act concerning confessions caused by inducement, threat or promise.

Relevance to Section 22: The decision explains the need to examine whether the confession was caused by an influence proceeding from a person in authority, whether that influence related to the charge and whether it created the reasonable expectation contemplated by the provision.

2. Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 SC 18

Legal principle: The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary treatment of a confessional statement and the need to consider whether the confession was voluntary and truthful in the circumstances of the case.

Relevance to Section 22: The decision provides context for the assessment of confessional evidence under the former Evidence Act. It should not be treated as a direct ruling on the express inclusion of coercion in Section 22 BSA.

Legal clarification: These cases concern the former Evidence Act. They are included to explain the historical legal principles underlying Section 22, not as judgments directly interpreting the BSA.

Relationship Between Section 22 and Other BSA Provisions

Section 22 must be read alongside the other provisions governing confessions.

Provision	Subject	Relevance
Section 22	Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise	Excludes confessions satisfying the specified conditions and contains two provisos.
Section 23	Confession to police officer	Governs the prohibition on proving confessions made to police officers and the statutory rules concerning confessions in police custody.
Section 24	Consideration of proved confession affecting its maker and others jointly under trial for the same offence	Addresses the court’s consideration of a proved confession affecting its maker and another person jointly tried for the same offence, subject to statutory conditions.

These provisions address different questions. A confession that is not excluded under Section 22 may still be inadmissible under Section 23 or another applicable rule.

Corresponding Provisions Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 22 of the BSA consolidates the subject matter of three provisions of the former Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

BSA provision	Corresponding former provision	Subject
Main rule under Section 22	Section 24	Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise
First proviso to Section 22	Section 28	Confession made after removal of the impression caused by inducement, threat or promise
Second proviso to Section 22	Section 29	Confession otherwise relevant not rendered irrelevant merely because of specified circumstances

An important change is the express inclusion of coercion in Section 22 BSA.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force on 1 July 2024. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed by Section 170 of the BSA, subject to the applicable savings provisions. Proceedings covered by those savings may continue to be governed by the former Act.

For proceedings governed by the BSA, the correct statutory reference is Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Important Points for Law School and Judiciary Examinations

• Section 22 BSA deals with confessions caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise.
• The corresponding provisions under the former Indian Evidence Act were Sections 24, 28 and 29.
• The main rule requires the influence to relate to the charge and originate from a person in authority.
• The influence must be sufficient to create reasonable grounds for expecting an advantage or avoiding a temporal harm connected with the proceedings.
• The first proviso applies when the impression caused by the earlier influence has been fully removed.
• The second proviso identifies five circumstances that do not, by themselves, make an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant.
• A promise of secrecy does not automatically make a confession irrelevant.
• Deception alone does not automatically make a confession irrelevant under the second proviso.
• The absence of a warning does not, by itself, make an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant under this provision.
• Section 22 must be distinguished from Section 23, which separately governs confessions to police officers and confessions in police custody.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 22 BSA?

Section 22 governs confessions caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise. It makes a confession irrelevant when the specified influence originates from a person in authority, relates to the charge and creates the reasonable expectation described in the provision.

2. What are the essential conditions under Section 22 BSA?

The main rule requires a confession by an accused person, a qualifying inducement, threat, coercion or promise connected with the charge, influence originating from a person in authority, and a reasonable expectation of gaining an advantage or avoiding a temporal harm in the proceedings.

3. What happens if the influence is fully removed?

Under the first proviso, a confession made after the impression caused by the earlier influence has been fully removed may be relevant. The court must determine whether the influence has genuinely been removed.

4. Does a promise of secrecy make a confession irrelevant?

No. Under the second proviso, an otherwise relevant confession does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy. Other grounds of exclusion may still apply.

5. Is a confession obtained through deception automatically inadmissible?

No. Deception alone does not make an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant under the second proviso. The court must still examine whether the main rule or another applicable provision excludes it.

6. Does the absence of a warning make a confession irrelevant?

Not by itself under Section 22. The second proviso states that an otherwise relevant confession does not become irrelevant merely because the accused was not warned that they were not bound to confess and that the confession might be used as evidence.

7. What is the difference between Section 22 and Section 23 BSA?

Section 22 concerns confessions obtained through specified forms of improper influence. Section 23 separately governs confessions made to police officers and the statutory restrictions relating to confessions made while in police custody.

8. What is the corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Section 22 BSA combines the subject matter of Sections 24, 28 and 29 of the former Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

9. Why is Section 22 important for judiciary examinations?

Section 22 is important because it tests the requirements for excluding a confession obtained through improper influence, the significance of a person in authority, the removal of improper influence and the circumstances that do not automatically make a confession irrelevant.

Conclusion

Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 protects the integrity of criminal proceedings by excluding confessions obtained through specified forms of improper influence when the statutory conditions are satisfied.

The main rule focuses on the connection between the influence and the charge, the role of a person in authority, and the reasonable expectation that confessing would secure an advantage or avoid a temporal harm. The first proviso addresses subsequent confessions made after the earlier influence has been fully removed, while the second proviso clarifies that certain circumstances do not, by themselves, render an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant.

For law students and judiciary aspirants, the essential task is to understand the main rule, both provisos and the distinction between Section 22 and the separate restrictions under Section 23 BSA.

dfsad