Section 22 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding

Section 22 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Evidence Sec 2(1)(c) Admission Sec 15 Confession Sec 21

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 22

Section 22 renders a confession made by an accused person irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if caused by inducement, threat, or promise proceeding from a person in authority.

Framing & Alteration of Charges: Section 22 (formerly Section 24 IEA) provides that 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.
Core Legal Standard: Sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds for supposing that by making it they would gain any advantage or avoid any evil.

Section 22 enforces a fundamental constitutional safeguard, excluding involuntary confessions extracted through official inducement, threat, or promise from criminal trials.

The standard of exclusion is sensitive: the section does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt; if it 'appears to the Court' that coercive or promissory influences were exerted by police, magistrates, or employers, the confession is excluded as involuntary.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963) Supp (1) SCR 689: Held that the mere existence of an inducement, threat, or promise proceeding from a person in authority is sufficient to exclude a confession under this provision.
State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180: Affirmed that extra-judicial confessions must be established as wholly voluntary and free from any official or custodial coercion.

Legal Commentary:

Section 22 is a foundational safeguard preserving the voluntariness of criminal disclosures. By excluding involuntary confessions upon mere judicial suspicion ('appears to the Court'), the law strips investigative agencies of the incentive to use torture, prolonged illegal confinement, or false promises of pardon.