What Is Confession and When Is It Admissible Under BSA 2023?

Confession is one of the strongest pieces of evidence in a criminal trial. When an accused person admits guilt, it can decide the whole outcome of a case. But the law does not accept every statement blindly. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which has replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, lays down clear rules on when a confession can be used in court and when it cannot.

In simple words, a confession is only useful to the court if it is made freely, without any pressure, and in the right circumstances. This topic is a regular favourite in the Judiciary Exam because it mixes law, logic, and real courtroom situations. Prelims papers frequently ask about the exact sections, while Mains papers expect candidates to apply these sections to a given fact situation.

Students preparing under Nitesh Choubey Sir at Aashayein Judiciary are advised to build a strong foundation in this topic, since confession law connects directly with criminal procedure and constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

What Does Confession Mean

The word confession is not defined anywhere in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Courts have relied on judicial interpretation to explain its meaning. In simple words, a confession is a statement made by an accused person which either admits the offence directly, or admits substantially all the facts that make up the offence.

This is different from an admission. An admission is a wider term and can relate to any fact, in a civil or criminal matter. A confession is a special type of admission, made only by an accused person, and it must point towards guilt.

Suppose a person tells a friend, I was present at the shop that night, but I did not take any money. This is only a partial admission of presence and is not a confession, since it does not admit the offence. But if the same person says, I broke into the shop and took the cash, this directly admits the offence and qualifies as a confession.

Types of Confession

Confessions are generally understood under two broad categories.

●   Judicial Confession: This is made before a Magistrate or a court, usually recorded under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Because it is made under judicial supervision, it carries strong evidentiary value.

●   Extra-Judicial Confession: This is made outside the court, to any other person such as a friend, family member, or even a stranger. Its value depends on how trustworthy and voluntary the circumstances were, and courts usually look for some supporting evidence before relying on it.

A confession can also be retracted later by the accused. In such a situation, courts examine how early the retraction was made and whether the original confession was voluntary and true, before deciding how much weight to give it.

Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat or Coercion — Section 22

Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, states that a confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if it appears to the court that it was caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise, connected to the charge, and coming from a person in authority.

In simple words, if the accused was made to confess because someone in power offered a benefit or created fear, the confession loses its value completely. The law does not want a person to be convicted merely because he was pressured into speaking against himself.

There is an important exception here. If the court is satisfied that the effect of such threat or inducement was fully removed before the confession was actually made, the confession becomes relevant again. The law also clarifies that a confession does not become irrelevant only because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or through some deception, or when the accused was intoxicated, or in answer to questions he was not bound to answer, or because he was not warned that he had a right to remain silent.

Confession to Police Officer and Confession in Custody — Section 23

Section 23 is one of the most tested provisions in this topic. It has two parts.

●   Section 23(1): No confession made to a police officer can be proved against the accused. This rule exists because a police officer holds power over a suspect, and there is always a risk of pressure or coercion during investigation.

●   Section 23(2): No confession made by a person while he is in police custody can be proved against him, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. The presence of the Magistrate works as a safeguard, since the Magistrate has a duty to check that the confession is voluntary.

Suppose a person is arrested and tells the investigating officer that he committed the theft. This statement cannot be used against him, because it was made directly to a police officer. The same rule applies even if he says this to someone else while still in police custody, unless a Magistrate is present at that time. The term custody is understood widely, and is not limited to formal arrest.

Confession Leading to Discovery — Proviso to Section 23

The proviso attached to Section 23 provides an important exception. If any fact is discovered because of information given by the accused while in police custody, then that part of the information which relates distinctly to the fact discovered can be proved, even though it was given to a police officer.

Suppose a person in custody tells the police, I hid the stolen jewellery under the bridge near the old mill. If the police recover the jewellery from that spot, then this part of the statement becomes admissible, though the rest of the statement remains excluded. This rule protects the accused from blanket use of a custodial statement, while still letting the court rely on facts that are independently verified through recovery.

Confession Affecting Co-Accused — Section 24

Section 24 deals with a situation where more than one person is being tried jointly for the same offence. If one of the accused makes a confession that affects both himself and the other accused persons on trial with him, the court may take that confession into consideration against all of them, not just the person who made it.

Suppose two persons, A and B, are tried together for a robbery. If A says, B and I committed this robbery together, the court may consider this statement against B as well. Such joint confessions are generally treated as weak evidence, and courts look for independent corroboration before relying on them heavily.

Together, Sections 22 to 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, replace the earlier Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while keeping the underlying protections intact. As explained by Nitesh Choubey Sir during Judiciary Preparation sessions at Aashayein Judiciary, the numbering has changed but the logic of voluntariness remains the same, which makes it easier for students who already know the old law to adapt quickly.

Preparing for the Judicial Services Exam becomes easier with online judiciary preparation courses. Get expert mentorship, live classes, comprehensive study material, mock tests, and regular current affairs updates—all in one place. A structured online learning approach helps aspirants stay consistent and improve their chances of success in Judiciary and APP examinations. 

Case Law Section

Case Name: Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor

Citation: AIR 1939 PC 47, decided by the Privy Council on 19 January 1939

Facts

The deceased, Kuree Nukaraju, received a letter asking him to come to Berhampur to collect money he was owed. He told his wife about this letter and left home on 21 March 1937 to catch the train. Two days later, on 23 March 1937, his dismembered body was found inside a steel trunk in a railway compartment at Puri.

During investigation, the accused made a statement to the police, before his arrest, about the deceased's visit to his house. The trial court relied on this statement along with other evidence and convicted the accused of murder, and the Patna High Court upheld the conviction. The accused appealed to the Privy Council.

Issue Before the Court

●   Whether the statement made by the accused to the police amounted to a confession.

●   Whether the statement of the deceased to his wife, about going to Berhampur to collect his dues, could be treated as a dying declaration under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Court's Decision

The Privy Council held that the accused's statement was partly a confession and partly an explanation of his innocence, and such a mixed statement had to be considered as a whole rather than split into convenient parts. Their Lordships also held that the statement had been wrongly admitted because of a procedural bar under the Code of Criminal Procedure then in force.

On the question of the dying declaration, the Court held that the deceased's statement to his wife explained the circumstances leading to his death and was therefore admissible under Section 32(1), even though the deceased had no expectation of death when he made it.

Important Observations

Lord Atkin explained that a confession must either admit the offence in terms, or substantially admit all the facts that constitute the offence. A statement that merely admits a highly incriminating fact is not, by itself, a confession.

The Court further clarified that if a statement contains any self-exculpatory part, meaning a part that tries to explain innocence, the whole statement must be accepted or rejected together. It cannot be divided so that only the incriminating portion is used against the accused.

Why the Case Is Important

This case gives the working definition of confession that Indian courts still rely upon today. Since the term confession is not defined in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, examiners often expect students to quote this definition while answering questions on Sections 22 to 24. According to the teaching approach followed at Aashayein Judiciary, understanding this case properly helps students distinguish a genuine confession from a mere incriminating statement, which is a very common point of confusion in Mains answer writing.

Exam Relevance

Prelims POV

●   Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, and how they correspond to the old Sections 24 to 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

●   The two parts of Section 23, dealing with confession to police and confession in custody

●   The discovery proviso attached to Section 23, and the conditions needed for it to apply

●   The definition of confession as explained in Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor

●   PYQ style fact-based questions asking whether a given statement is admissible as a confession or not

Mains POV

For Mains answer writing, start by explaining what a confession means using the Pakala Narayana Swami definition, since the term is undefined in the Act. Then move section by section, from Section 22 on inducement and threat, to Section 23 on police confessions and custodial confessions, followed by the discovery proviso, and finally Section 24 on co-accused confessions. Support each point with a short example. Mentioning that confession law protects the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) shows depth of preparation.

Interview POV

Interview panels often ask why confessions to police officers are not trusted by the law. A good answer explains that a police officer holds authority over a suspect during investigation, and there is a real risk that statements may be obtained through pressure or fear. The safeguard of requiring a Magistrate's presence, or independent recovery through the discovery rule, shows how the law balances effective investigation with protection of the accused.

Understanding the difference between a Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offence Under BNSS is essential for every Judiciary aspirant. Knowing when the police can register an FIR, investigate a case, or require court permission helps build a strong foundation for Judiciary exams and practical legal knowledge. Mastering this topic is an important step in effective online judiciary preparation. 

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is a confession under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

A confession is a statement made by an accused person which either admits the offence directly or substantially admits all the facts that make up the offence, as explained in Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor.

2. Can a confession made to a police officer be used as evidence?

No. Under Section 23(1) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, a confession made to a police officer cannot be proved against the accused.

3. Is a confession made in police custody always inadmissible?

It is inadmissible under Section 23(2) unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, or unless it falls under the discovery proviso relating to a fact that was actually recovered.

4. What is the discovery rule in confession law?

The proviso to Section 23 allows that part of a custodial statement which directly led to the discovery of a fact to be proved, even though the rest of the statement remains inadmissible.

5. Can a confession by one accused be used against another accused in the same trial?

Yes. Under Section 24, if two or more persons are tried jointly for the same offence, a confession by one that affects the others can be considered by the court against all of them, though such evidence is usually treated with caution.

Conclusion

Confession law under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, tries to strike a balance between allowing genuine admissions of guilt to help the court and protecting an accused person from statements obtained through pressure or coercion. In simple words, the law trusts a confession only when it is voluntary and made in the right setting.

Students preparing for the Civil Judge Exam and the PCS J Exam should read Sections 22 to 24 carefully along with the Pakala Narayana Swami judgment, since this combination covers both the statutory rule and its judicial interpretation.

Aashayein Judiciary continues to publish updated Judiciary Notes and Judiciary Study Material on such foundational topics to help aspirants stay exam ready. Guidance from Nitesh Choubey Sir on connecting old Evidence Act concepts with the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam provisions has helped many students avoid confusion during both Judiciary Prelims and Judiciary Mains.

Need help with Judiciary Exam preparation, admissions, or course selection? Contact Aashayein Judiciary for expert guidance, personalized support, and answers to all your queries. Our team is here to help you achieve your Judiciary career goals.