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

Section 22 BSA excludes confessions obtained through specified inducements, threats, coercion or promises and explains when such confessions may become relevant.

Introduction

Confession is an important concept under the law of evidence because a statement admitting guilt may significantly affect the outcome of a criminal proceeding. However, a confession must satisfy the applicable legal requirements before it can be relied upon as evidence against an accused person.

Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) protects accused persons against confessions obtained through specified forms of inducement, threat, coercion or promise. It provides that a confession is irrelevant when the statutory conditions are fulfilled, including that the influence originates from a person in authority and gives the accused reasonable grounds to believe that confessing would secure an advantage or avoid a temporal harm connected with the proceedings.

The section also contains two important provisos. The first addresses confessions made after the influence of the original inducement, threat, coercion or promise has been fully removed. The second explains circumstances that do not, by themselves, make an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant, such as a promise of secrecy or deception.

For law students and judiciary aspirants, Section 22 is important for understanding voluntariness, admissibility and the distinction between a confession that is irrelevant because of improper influence and one that may be considered under the applicable evidentiary rules.

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 against relying on a confession that has been obtained through the forms of improper influence specified in the provision.

A confession is generally understood as a statement by an accused person admitting guilt or substantially admitting the offence alleged. Not every admission made by an accused person amounts to a confession; the substance of the statement must be examined.

The section focuses on the circumstances in which a confession was made. It does not make every confession inadmissible merely because it was made to an investigating officer, in custody or without a warning. Those circumstances may be governed by other provisions or may be relevant to the court’s assessment, but Section 22 has its own specific requirements.

Essential elements of Section 22

For the main rule to apply, the following elements must be established:

1. A confession by an accused person: The statement must qualify as a confession.
2. Inducement, threat, coercion or promise: The confession must appear to have been caused by one of these forms of influence.
3. Reference to the charge: The influence must have a connection with the charge against the accused.
4. A person in authority: The inducement, threat, coercion or promise must proceed from a person in authority.
5. A reasonable perceived advantage or avoidance of harm: The influence must be sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds to suppose that confessing would bring an advantage or prevent a temporal harm connected with the proceedings.

These requirements must be considered together. The mere fact that an accused person made a confession after a conversation with an official does not automatically establish that Section 22 applies.

Explanation of the Main Rule Under Section 22

1. Confession by an accused person

The provision applies to a confession made by an accused person in a criminal proceeding.

The court must first determine whether the statement is actually a confession. A statement that merely acknowledges presence at a location, admits ownership of an object or establishes a limited fact may not necessarily amount to a confession of the offence.

For example, an accused person stating that they were present at the scene of a crime does not, without more, necessarily admit committing the crime.

2. Inducement

Inducement refers to an influence or offer intended to encourage the accused to confess.

For example, an investigating official tells an accused person that admitting the offence will result in favourable treatment in the criminal proceedings.

If the inducement satisfies the other statutory conditions and causes the confession, the main rule under Section 22 may apply.

3. Threat

A threat involves an expressed or implied prospect of adverse consequences intended to influence the accused into confessing.

For example, an official threatens to arrange for the accused’s family to face unlawful consequences unless the accused admits the offence.

If the threat is connected with the charge, proceeds from a person in authority and satisfies the remaining requirements, the resulting confession is irrelevant under Section 22.

4. Coercion

The express inclusion of coercion in Section 22 addresses confessions obtained through coercive influence satisfying the statutory test.

For 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.

Whether the statutory conditions are fulfilled depends on the evidence and the circumstances in which the confession was made.

5. Promise

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

For example, an official promises that the accused will be released from custody if they confess to the offence.

The court must assess the nature of the promise, the authority of the person making it, its connection with the charge and whether it could reasonably lead the accused to expect an advantage in the proceedings.

Not every statement about a possible benefit amounts to a prohibited promise under Section 22. The complete statutory test must be satisfied.

6. The influence must relate to the charge

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

An unrelated conversation or offer does not automatically bring a confession within Section 22. There must be the required connection between the influence and the criminal proceedings.

7. The influence must originate from a person in authority

The provision expressly requires the influence to proceed from a person in authority.

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

The question is whether the person occupied a position of authority relevant to the circumstances. The court must assess the person’s role and the nature of the influence rather than assume that every person interacting with an accused necessarily qualifies.

The precise application of this requirement depends on the facts of the case.

8. The accused must have reasonable grounds to expect an advantage or avoid harm

The influence must be sufficient to give the accused grounds that would appear reasonable to the accused for believing that confessing would secure an advantage or avoid a temporal harm connected with the proceedings.

The statutory test is not satisfied merely because an accused person later expresses regret about confessing. The court must examine whether the specified influence could reasonably have produced the expectation described in Section 22.

First Proviso: Confession After the Influence Has Been Fully Removed

The first proviso creates an important exception to the main rule.

It provides that a confession becomes relevant if it is made after the impression caused by the inducement, threat, coercion or promise has, in the court’s opinion, been fully removed.

The key requirement is full removal of the earlier influence.

A later confession is not automatically relevant simply because some time has passed since the original threat or promise. The court must assess whether the influence that affected the accused has genuinely been removed.

Example

An official threatens an accused person with adverse consequences unless the accused confesses. The accused initially confesses under that influence.

Later, the threat is withdrawn, the accused is no longer acting under its influence, and the court is satisfied that the impression 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.

Why is this proviso important?

The proviso recognises that an earlier improper influence does not necessarily render every later confession permanently irrelevant. However, the burden of assessing whether the impression has been fully removed rests on the court’s evaluation of the circumstances.

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 the specified feature.

It addresses five situations.

1. Promise of secrecy

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

For example, an accused person makes a statement after being assured that the conversation will remain confidential.

The promise of secrecy alone does not trigger the exclusion under this part of Section 22. The confession must still satisfy the applicable rules of relevance and admissibility.

2. Deception used to obtain the confession

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

For example, an investigator uses a deceptive pretext to encourage the accused to speak.

The fact of deception alone does not make the confession irrelevant under the second proviso. However, if the circumstances independently satisfy the main rule of Section 22 or another statutory exclusion, the confession may still be inadmissible.

3. Confession made while 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 assess whether the statement qualifies as a confession and satisfies the applicable rules of evidence.

The extent of intoxication may also be relevant to whether the accused understood the statement or whether other legal requirements have been satisfied.

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

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

The provision distinguishes the fact that a person was not obliged to answer a question from the separate question of whether the confession was obtained through prohibited influence.

Other statutory protections may still apply, depending on the circumstances.

5. Absence of a warning that the confession could be used as evidence

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

This clause must be read carefully. It does not mean that every confession is admissible regardless of how it was obtained. Section 22 continues to exclude confessions that satisfy its main rule, while other provisions may impose independent restrictions.

Difference Between the Main Rule and the Two Provisos

Provision	Legal effect	Key requirement
Main rule	Makes a qualifying confession irrelevant	Specified influence from a person in authority, connected with the charge, creating a reasonable expectation of advantage or avoidance of temporal harm
First proviso	Allows a later 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 do not eliminate the main rule. They explain how the rule operates in particular circumstances.

Practical Examples of Section 22 BSA

The following are explanatory examples, not statutory illustrations.

Example 1: Confession following a threat

An investigating official tells A that A will face serious harm unless A confesses to a theft. A 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 tells B that B will receive favourable treatment in the criminal proceedings if B admits the offence. B makes a confession in response.

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

The court must examine whether the promise was connected with the charge, whether it proceeded from a person in authority and whether it created the reasonable expectation described by the statute.

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

Example 3: Subsequent confession after removal of the influence

C initially confesses after being threatened. Later, the court finds that the impression caused by the threat has been fully removed before C makes a subsequent confession.

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

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

Example 4: Promise of secrecy

D makes a confession after being told that the conversation will remain secret.

The promise of secrecy alone does not make an otherwise relevant confession irrelevant under the second proviso. Other statutory restrictions must still be considered.

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 E. The statement amounts to a confession.

The deception alone does not make the confession irrelevant under the second proviso. However, the court must still examine whether the main rule or another provision independently excludes it.

Principle: The statutory effect of deception must be distinguished from the effect of prohibited inducement, threat, coercion or promise.

Relevant Case Laws on Confessions

Section 22 BSA substantially combines the subject matter of Sections 24, 28 and 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The following decisions concern the earlier law and may assist in understanding the principles of voluntariness and prohibited influence. They are not judgments directly interpreting Section 22 BSA.

1. Laxman Padma Bhagat v. State

Legal principle: The Supreme Court considered the application of Section 24 of the former Evidence Act and the requirements for excluding a confession obtained through inducement, threat or promise.

Relevance to Section 22: The decision illustrates the importance of examining whether the influence originated from a person in authority, related to the charge and created the expectation of an advantage or avoidance of harm contemplated by the provision.

The precise report citation should be checked against the authoritative judgment before being used in formal legal submissions.

2. Ratan Gond v. State of Bihar

Legal principle: The Supreme Court considered the evidentiary significance of a confessional statement and the need to examine whether a confession is voluntary and supported by the surrounding circumstances.

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

Legal caution

The admissibility of a confession depends on the particular statutory restriction invoked and the facts established before the court. The decisions above concern the former Evidence Act and should be distinguished from direct interpretations of 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 statutory conditions and contains two provisos.
Section 23	Confession to police officer	Governs the general 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	Governs the court’s consideration of a confession affecting its maker and another person jointly tried for the same offence, subject to the statutory conditions.

These provisions address different issues. 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 by specified circumstances

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

The BSA came into force on 1 July 2024, subject to the applicable statutory provisions. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed by Section 170 of the BSA, subject to savings for relevant pending proceedings. The applicable statute should therefore be determined with reference to the circumstances and the statutory savings provisions.

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 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

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, an 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 inducement, threat, coercion or promise 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. However, the court must examine whether the confession is excluded under the main rule or another applicable provision.

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 of the 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 an involuntary confession, 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 the specified forms of improper influence when the statutory conditions are satisfied.

Its 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