Section 23 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Confession to police officer

Section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Confession to police officer

Official Bare Act Text

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

(1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.

(2) No confession made by any person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him:

Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved.

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

Court Sec 2(1)(a) Proved Sec 2(1)(f) Confession Sec 21

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 23

Section 23 consolidates the fundamental rules barring confessions made to police officers while codifying the landmark doctrine of Discovery of Fact.

Evidentiary Proof & Admissibility: Section 23 integrates former Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Sub-Section (1) Provision: Sub-section (1) lays down the categorical exclusionary rule: no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence, and no confession made while in police custody shall be proved unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

Crucially, sub-section (2) enacts the legendary proviso (formerly Section 27 IEA): provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor (1947) LR 74 IA 65: The Privy Council established the canonical interpretation of discovery under Section 27 IEA / Section 23(2) BSA: only that portion of information which leads distinctly to the discovery of the physical object is admissible; confessional narratives of past crimes remain strictly inadmissible.
Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State (2024) 2 SCC 597: Three-judge bench reaffirmed that discovery under Section 27 requires: (1) information given in custody; (2) subsequent discovery of a hidden object; and (3) discovery must be the direct result of the disclosure statement.
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 134: Held that a confessional FIR lodged by an accused at a police station cannot be used against him, save for the distinct discoverable portion under the discovery rule.

Legal Commentary:

Section 23 is the most frequently argued evidentiary section in Indian criminal trials. While sub-section (1) creates an absolute shield against custodial police confessions, sub-section (2) provides the investigative exception: physical recovery of the weapon of offence, bloodstained clothes, or dead body directly pursuant to the accused's disclosure memo is admissible because physical reality confirms the truth of that specific piece of information.