Research article on:

Confession to Police Officers: Admissibility and Safeguards

Subject: Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

Submitted By:
Name: Khushi Pradeep Shukla
Roll no: 131
TY-LLB, Semester 6
Academic Year: 2025-26

Submitted to:
Dr Rajwant Rao
Vivekanand College of Law

1
 Introduction

In criminal law, a confession is often considered one of the most powerful forms of evidence
because it involves an accused person acknowledging his or her involvement in the commission
of a crime. A confession can significantly influence the outcome of a criminal trial, as it directly
indicates the guilt of the accused. However, because of its strong evidentiary value, the law
imposes strict safeguards on the use of confessions to ensure that they are voluntary, reliable, and
not obtained through coercion or undue influence.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), which replaced the Indian Evidence Act of 1872,
lays down detailed provisions regarding the admissibility of confessions. Although the Adhiniyam
does not explicitly define the term “confession,” it is generally understood as a statement made by
an accused person that either admits guilt or substantially acknowledges the facts that constitute
the offence. In legal understanding, confessions are treated as a special form of admission. While
every confession is an admission, not every admission amounts to a confession.

The admissibility of confessions is carefully regulated because confessions obtained through

pressure, inducement, threat, or promise can undermine the fairness of the criminal justice system.
For this reason, the Adhiniyam contains several safeguards to protect the rights of accused persons.
Sections 22, 23, and 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam deal specifically with confessions
and the circumstances in which they may or may not be used as evidence in court.

One of the most significant safeguards is found in Section 23, which deals with confessions made
to police officers. This provision establishes that a confession made to a police officer cannot be
proved against an accused person in a criminal trial. The law also provides that a confession made
while a person is in police custody is generally inadmissible unless it is made in the immediate
presence of a Magistrate. These rules are based on the recognition that police custody may create
circumstances in which an accused person could be subjected to coercion, intimidation, or pressure
to confess.

2
At the same time, the law recognises a limited exception where information provided by an accused
person leads to the discovery of a relevant fact. In such situations, only the specific portion of the
statement that directly relates to the discovery may be admitted as evidence. This exception ensures
that important evidence is not lost while still maintaining safeguards against misuse of confessions.

The principle underlying these provisions is closely connected to the constitutional protection
against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which states that no
person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Thus, the legal
framework governing confessions seeks to balance two important objectives: enabling the
discovery of truth in criminal proceedings and protecting the fundamental rights of individuals.

Therefore, the study of confessions to police officers and their admissibility is crucial for
understanding how the criminal justice system maintains fairness and reliability in the use of
evidence. This research assignment examines the legal position relating to confessions made to
police officers under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the safeguards provided to accused
persons, relevant judicial interpretations, and the broader implications for the administration of
criminal justice.

Objectives of the Study

The present research aims to examine the legal principles governing confessions made to police
officers under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Since confessions have a significant
impact on criminal trials, it becomes essential to understand the circumstances in which such
statements are admissible or inadmissible in court. The study focuses on analysing the safeguards
provided by law to protect the rights of the accused while ensuring that justice is served.

The main objectives of this study are as follows:

● To understand the concept and legal nature of confession in criminal law.

3
 ● The study seeks to explain what constitutes a confession and how it differs from an
admission within the framework of evidentiary law.
● To examine the provisions relating to confessions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023.
● Particular emphasis is placed on Section 23, which deals with confessions made to police
officers and the circumstances under which they are considered inadmissible.
● To analyse the rationale behind restricting the admissibility of confessions made to police
officers.
● This objective focuses on understanding the policy reasons behind the law, especially the
need to prevent coercion, intimidation, or misuse of authority during police investigations.

Concept of Confession in Criminal Law

In criminal law, a confession refers to a statement made by an accused person in which he or she
admits involvement in the commission of an offence. Such a statement usually acknowledges guilt
or admits facts that clearly indicate the accused person's responsibility for the crime. Because a
confession directly relates to the guilt of the accused, it is often regarded as one of the most
powerful forms of evidence in criminal proceedings.

Although the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 does not provide an explicit definition of the
term “confession,” the concept can be understood through the broader definition of admission
provided in the law. According to Section 15 of the Adhiniyam, an admission refers to a statement,
whether oral, written, or in electronic form, which suggests an inference regarding any fact in issue
or relevant fact. Confessions are generally considered a special category of admissions because
they specifically relate to the acknowledgment of guilt by an accused person in a criminal case.

Legal scholars and judges have also attempted to clarify the meaning of confession through judicial
interpretation. Sir James Stephen described a confession as a statement made by a person charged
with a crime which suggests or admits that he committed the offence. This explanation highlights
the essential feature of a confession, an acknowledgment of guilt or facts that clearly imply guilt.

4
The courts have also clarified the scope of what constitutes a confession. In Pakala Narayan
Swami v. Emperor1, the Privy Council observed that a confession must either admit the offence
directly or admit all the facts that constitute the offence.

Another important aspect of confessions is the distinction between admissions and confessions.
While both involve statements made by a person regarding relevant facts, they differ in scope. An
admission may relate to any fact relevant to a case, whether civil or criminal, whereas a confession
specifically relates to an acknowledgment of guilt in a criminal offence. Therefore, it is commonly
stated that every confession is an admission, but every admission is not a confession.

Confessions may take different forms depending on the circumstances in which they are made.
They may occur before a court or magistrate, in which case they are referred to as judicial
confessions, or they may occur outside the court, such as when an accused confesses to a private
individual. Such statements are known as extrajudicial confessions. The evidentiary value of these
confessions depends on various factors, including whether the statement was made voluntarily and
whether it is supported by other evidence.

In criminal jurisprudence, the law emphasises that a confession must always be voluntary and free
from coercion, threat, or inducement. If a confession is obtained through pressure or improper
influence, it cannot be relied upon as evidence. This principle ensures fairness in criminal
proceedings and protects the accused from being forced to incriminate themselves.

Thus, the concept of confession plays a crucial role in criminal trials, but its admissibility is strictly
regulated to prevent misuse and to safeguard the rights of individuals within the justice system.

Types of Confessions and Their Evidentiary Value

1
Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor (1939) AIR PC 47

5
In criminal law, confessions can take different forms depending on the circumstances in which
they are made. The classification of confessions helps courts determine their evidentiary value and
admissibility in legal proceedings. Broadly, confessions are divided into judicial confessions,
extrajudicial confessions, retracted confessions, and confessions made by a co-accused.

1. Judicial Confession-
A judicial confession refers to a confession made by an accused person before a Magistrate or a
court during judicial proceedings. Such confessions are formally recorded according to the
procedure prescribed under criminal procedural law. Since they are made before a neutral judicial
authority, judicial confessions are considered more reliable than other types of confessions.

The Magistrate plays an important role in ensuring that the confession is made voluntarily and
without any pressure or coercion. The accused must be informed that he is not bound to make a
confession and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him. Only after
satisfying himself that the confession is voluntary does the Magistrate record it.

Because of these safeguards, judicial confessions generally carry significant evidentiary value and
may be relied upon by the court if they are found to be voluntary and truthful.

2. Extrajudicial Confession-
An extrajudicial confession is a confession made outside the court and not before a Magistrate. It
may be made to a private individual such as a friend, relative, neighbour, or any other person. Such
confessions are not recorded through a formal legal procedure.

Although extrajudicial confessions are admissible in evidence, courts usually treat them with
caution. Since they are made outside a formal judicial setting, there is a possibility of
misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or fabrication. Therefore, courts generally look for
corroborating evidence before relying upon an extrajudicial confession.

6
In Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu2, the Supreme Court laid down certain principles regarding
extrajudicial confessions. The Court observed that such confessions must be voluntary and
truthful, and the court should carefully scrutinize them before accepting them as reliable evidence.
The Court also stated that the evidentiary value of an extrajudicial confession increases when it is
supported by other material evidence.

3. Retracted Confession-
A retracted confession occurs when an accused person initially makes a confession but later
withdraws or denies it. Retraction may occur for various reasons, such as the accused claiming
that the confession was made under pressure or coercion.

Courts generally treat retracted confessions with caution. A conviction based solely on a retracted
confession is considered unsafe unless it is supported by other independent evidence. In Pyare Lal
v. State of Rajasthan3, the Supreme Court held that a retracted confession may be relied upon only
if the court is satisfied that it was made voluntarily and is corroborated by other evidence on record.
Thus, while a retracted confession may still be considered by the court, it usually requires strong
corroboration to ensure its reliability.

4. Confession by Co-Accused-
In cases involving more than one accused person, a confession made by one accused may
sometimes implicate other accused persons. Such a statement is known as a confession by a co-
accused.

However, the evidentiary value of such confessions is limited. Courts have consistently held that
the confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence against another
accused person. It may only be used to support other evidence already available on record.

2
Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403
3
Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1963) AIR 1094

7
In Pancho v. State of Haryana4, the Supreme Court held that the confession of a co-accused has
weak evidentiary value and cannot by itself form the basis of conviction. It may only be used to
lend assurance to other independent evidence.

Overall, the classification of confessions helps courts evaluate their reliability, voluntariness, and
evidentiary value. While judicial confessions are generally considered stronger evidence,
extrajudicial, retracted, and co-accused confessions require careful scrutiny and corroboration to
ensure fairness in criminal trials.

Confession to Police Officers: Admissibility under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam, 2023

One of the most important safeguards relating to confessions in criminal law is contained in
Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. This provision deals specifically with
confessions made to police officers and lays down strict rules regarding their admissibility in court.
The section reflects the principle that confessions made under the influence of police authority
may not always be voluntary or reliable.

General Rule: Inadmissibility of Confession to Police Officers-

Section 23(1) clearly states that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a
person accused of any offence. This means that if an accused person makes a confession directly
to a police officer, such a confession cannot be used as evidence against him in a criminal trial.

The rule creates an absolute bar on the admissibility of confessions made to police officers. Even
if the confession appears to be voluntary or true, it cannot be admitted as evidence. The law adopts
this strict approach because of the concern that police officers, during the course of investigation,
may use pressure, coercion, or inducement to obtain confessions from accused persons.

4
Pancho v. State of Haryana (2011) 10 SCC 165

8
Therefore, the law prefers that guilt should be established through reliable evidence rather than
through confessions obtained during police investigation.

Confession Made in Police Custody-

Section 23(2) further strengthens the safeguard by providing that a confession made by a person
while in the custody of a police officer is also inadmissible, unless it is made in the immediate
presence of a Magistrate.

This provision applies even when the confession is not made directly to a police officer. For
example, if an accused person makes a confession to another person while he is in police custody,
the statement will still be inadmissible unless it was made before a Magistrate. The presence of a
Magistrate acts as a safeguard to ensure that the confession is voluntary and free from pressure.

The role of the Magistrate is therefore crucial, as the Magistrate acts as a neutral authority who
can verify that the accused person is making the confession willingly.

Exception: Discovery of Facts-

Although Section 23 imposes strict restrictions on confessions made to police officers, the law
provides a limited exception. According to the proviso to the section, when information given by
an accused person in police custody leads to the discovery of a fact, the portion of the statement
that directly relates to the discovery may be proved in court.

For example, if an accused person informs the police that a weapon used in the crime has been
hidden at a particular place, and the police subsequently recover the weapon from that location,
the specific part of the statement that led to the discovery may be admitted as evidence.

However, only the portion of the statement that distinctly relates to the discovery of the fact is
admissible. The rest of the confession, such as the description of how the crime was committed or
the motive behind it, remains inadmissible.

9
This exception ensures that useful evidence discovered as a result of the accused person's statement
is not excluded from consideration while still protecting the accused from misuse of confessions.

Meaning of Police Officer-

The expression “police officer” in this context has been interpreted by courts based on the powers
exercised by the officer. Generally, a police officer refers to a person who has the authority to
investigate offences, arrest suspects, and file a charge sheet.

In some situations, courts have also examined whether certain officials possessing investigative
powers can be treated as police officers for the purpose of this rule. The determination usually
depends on the nature of their powers and responsibilities during criminal investigations.

Judicial Interpretation-
Courts have repeatedly emphasised the importance of this safeguard. In State of Bombay v. Kathi
Kalu Oghad5, the Supreme Court observed that confessions made to police officers are excluded
from evidence because such statements may be influenced by fear, pressure, or intimidation.
Similarly, courts have consistently held that the purpose of this provision is to prevent the misuse
of police authority and to ensure that criminal convictions are based on reliable and voluntary
evidence.

Safeguards Against Misuse of Confessions

Since confessions have the potential to strongly influence the outcome of a criminal trial, the law
places several safeguards to ensure that such statements are genuine, voluntary, and free from
pressure. These safeguards are essential to prevent misuse of authority and to protect the
fundamental rights of accused persons. The provisions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023 and the Constitution of India collectively ensure that confessions are not obtained through
coercion, intimidation, or manipulation.

5
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961) 2 SCR 125

10
One of the most important safeguards is the rule that confessions made to police officers are not
admissible in evidence. Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam clearly establishes that a
confession made to a police officer cannot be proved against the accused in a criminal trial. This
rule exists because the investigation process often places the accused in a vulnerable position
where there may be a risk of pressure or coercion. By excluding such confessions, the law ensures
that convictions are not based on statements that might have been obtained through improper
means.

Another important safeguard relates to confessions made during police custody. The law provides
that even if a confession is not made directly to a police officer, it cannot be admitted if it was
made while the accused was in police custody, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a
Magistrate. The presence of a Magistrate acts as an important protective measure. A Magistrate is
expected to ensure that the accused is making the confession voluntarily and is not under any
threat, inducement, or pressure from the police.

The constitutional protection against self-incrimination also plays a crucial role in safeguarding
the rights of the accused. Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India states that no person accused
of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This principle ensures that
individuals cannot be forced to confess or provide evidence that may be used against them. It
reinforces the idea that confessions must be voluntary and not obtained through compulsion.

Another safeguard is found in the rule that confessions obtained through inducement, threat, or
promise are considered irrelevant. If a confession appears to have been made because the accused
believed that he would gain some advantage or avoid harm by confessing, such a confession cannot
be relied upon by the court. This ensures that statements made under influence or expectation of
benefit are not treated as reliable evidence.

The law also recognizes that certain types of confessions require careful judicial scrutiny. For
instance, extrajudicial confessions or retracted confessions are generally treated with caution by
courts. Judges usually look for corroborating evidence before relying on such statements. This

11
approach helps ensure that a person is not convicted solely on the basis of a doubtful or unreliable
confession.

At the same time, the law provides a limited exception when information given by an accused
person leads to the discovery of a relevant fact. In such cases, only the portion of the statement
that directly relates to the discovered fact is admissible in evidence. This rule balances the need to
protect the accused with the need to allow important evidence to be considered by the court.

Overall, these safeguards reflect the principle that the criminal justice system must prioritize
fairness and reliability. Confessions can be powerful evidence, but they must be obtained and used
in a manner that respects the rights and dignity of the accused.

Conclusion

Confessions play a significant role in criminal investigations and trials, as they can directly indicate
the involvement of an accused person in a crime. However, because of their powerful evidentiary
value, the law imposes strict limitations on how confessions may be obtained and used in court.
The provisions relating to confessions under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, particularly
Section 23, reflect the legal system’s effort to balance the search for truth with the protection of
individual rights.

The rule that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible in evidence is an important
safeguard against potential misuse of authority during investigations. This provision recognises
the possibility that confessions obtained in police custody may sometimes be influenced by
pressure, intimidation, or coercion. By excluding such confessions from evidence, the law aims to
ensure that criminal convictions are based on reliable and voluntary evidence rather than forced
admissions.

At the same time, the law allows certain limited exceptions, such as the admissibility of
information that leads to the discovery of a relevant fact. This exception ensures that useful

12
evidence obtained during investigations is not completely disregarded. The presence of a
Magistrate during the recording of a confession also acts as an essential safeguard, helping to
confirm that the statement has been made freely and without any undue influence.

In conclusion, the legal framework governing confessions to police officers demonstrates the
importance of fairness and due process in criminal law. By placing strict limits on the admissibility
of such confessions and introducing necessary safeguards, the law ensures that justice is
administered in a manner that respects both the rights of individuals and the need for effective
investigation of crimes.

Bibliography

Statutes:
● Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
● Constitution of India

Cases:
● Pakala Narayan Swami v. Emperor
● Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu
● Pancho v. State of Haryana
● Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan
● State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad

Books and Articles:

● Textbook on the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023- M. Monir
● Avtar Singh – Principles of the Law of Evidence
● India Code – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
● Legal articles on Evidence Law and Confessions.

13