SECTION 22 – CONFESSION CAUSED BY INDUCEMENT, THREAT OR PROMI
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.
POINT 1: The Confession Must Be Made by the Accused Person
1.1 Introduction to the Requirement
Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 applies only to confessions made by an accused person. This is the first and most fundamental requirement. The person who makes the confession must either already be formally charged with a criminal offence or be reasonably suspected of committing an offence by the investigating authority. The protection given by this section is specifically meant for people who are at risk of prosecution and punishment.
1.2 Meaning of “Accused Person”
The law does not define “accused person” only as someone who has been formally charged in court. Instead, the term also includes:
- A person detained by police
- A person questioned as a suspect
- A person named in the FIR or complaint
- A person who, even if not yet formally charged, is being treated as a potential offender
The moment someone is under suspicion and is being questioned or investigated in a criminal matter, they are considered an accused in the legal sense. This includes both pre-trial and post-arrest stages.
1.3 Who Is Not Covered
Section 22 does not apply to confessions made by:
- Witnesses
- Informants
- Bystanders
- Victims
- Any person who is not under suspicion or who makes a statement before being treated as a suspect
For example, if a neighbour suddenly says “I did it” during a police inquiry, that person may not be covered by Section 22 unless the police were already treating them as a suspect. Their statement may still be used as evidence, but not under the protection of this section.
1.4 Legal Significance of This Requirement
The reason behind this rule is very clear: Only those who are facing legal risk need to be protected against forced or unfair confessions. A person who is not accused has no pressure to confess or deny guilt. But an accused person may feel fear, anxiety, or coercion — especially during arrest or custody.
This is why the law says that any confession made by an accused must be closely examined by the court before accepting it. If the person was not yet treated as an accused, the court will not apply Section 22.
1.5 Judicial Understanding
Courts have clarified that even if a person has not yet been formally charged, the moment the authorities treat someone as a suspect, they should be given the protection under Section 22. This includes people called for questioning, taken into informal custody, or named in police diaries.
The court will look at:
- The nature of police behaviour
- The role played by the person
- The stage of investigation
- The reasonableness of the suspicion
1.6 Example Illustration
Suppose Ramesh is accused of theft. The police visit him and ask questions but do not formally arrest him. During the conversation, Ramesh says, “I took the money.” Since he was already being treated as a suspect, and the confession came during police questioning, Ramesh is an “accused person” under Section 22. The law will now examine whether his confession was voluntary or the result of a threat, inducement, or promise.
However, if Ramesh’s friend Sudhir, who was not being questioned, says, “Actually, I took the money,” his statement is not protected under Section 22 unless he was also being treated as an accused.
1.7 Conclusion
This requirement is the foundation of Section 22. The section only protects accused persons, not the general public. Courts will carefully determine whether the person who confessed was already under legal suspicion, and whether their confession should be excluded based on further factors like inducement, threat, or promise. Without meeting this first condition, the rest of the section does not apply.
Excellent. Here's the second point under Section 22 in a fully expanded, 500+ word format with clear headings, simple English, and detailed explanation.
POINT 2: There Must Be Inducement, Threat, or Promise
2.1 Introduction to the Requirement
Section 22 states that a confession made under duress is inadmissible. These three words may seem similar but have different legal meanings and effects. The law recognises that if a person confesses because they were forced, threatened, or offered a benefit, it cannot be considered voluntary. Therefore, it should not be used as evidence in court.
2.2 What is an “Inducement”?
An inducement is when the accused is offered a benefit or reward in exchange for a confession. This benefit may be in the form of:
- Leniency in punishment (e.g., “If you confess, we’ll ask the judge to go easy on you”)
- Freedom from arrest or jail (e.g., “Tell us the truth and we won’t arrest you”)
- Protection from harm (e.g., “Just admit it and we will ensure you’re not tortured”)
Inducements may also be emotional or psychological. Telling an accused, “You’ll be doing the right thing; it will bring peace to your family,” may seem moral, but if it results in a confession, courts may examine whether it influenced the mind of the accused improperly.
Even if the inducement is not fulfilled later, the confession will still be inadmissible if the accused believed in the promised benefit at the time.
2.3 What is a “Threat”?
A threat refers to fear of harm or punishment. If someone is told, directly or indirectly, that something bad will happen unless they confess, it qualifies as a threat. Examples include:
- “If you don’t confess, you’ll be beaten.”
- “We’ll arrest your brother if you keep lying.”
- “Your family will suffer if you don’t cooperate.”
A threat does not have to be carried out even the fear it creates can destroy the voluntary nature of a confession. The court only needs to decide whether the threat was likely to influence the person to confess.
2.4 What is a “Promise”?
A promise is like an inducement, but with a stronger commitment or guarantee. A promise is a clear assurance given to the accused about something that will happen in return for the confession. For example:
- “Confess and we’ll release you.”
- “We promise this case will be closed if you cooperate.”
Promises are usually made by police officers or other officials but can also come from persons who seem to have influence or control over the case.
2.5 Mode of Inducement, Threat, or Promise
All three – inducement, threat, and promise – can be:
- Verbal (spoken statements)
- Written
- Implied by actions
- Made directly or indirectly
- Delivered by third parties on behalf of someone in authority
For example, a subordinate officer saying, “Sir said you should speak up and it will go easier on you,” may also count as an inducement or promise.
The law is not limited to direct statements it considers the entire atmosphere and context in which the confession was made.
2.6 Legal View: Not About the Truth of the Confession
It is important to understand that even if a confession is completely true, it will still be excluded from evidence if it was caused by inducement, threat, or promise. The law does not care whether the confession helped solve the case. What matters is that it was not given freely, and therefore cannot be trusted as genuine evidence.
This shows that voluntariness is more important than truth. The law protects the integrity of the justice system over quick results.
2.7 Judicial Understanding
Courts have consistently held that even mild persuasion or hints of benefit can amount to inducement. The court does not need proof beyond doubt — it only has to form an opinion that the inducement, threat, or promise may have influenced the accused to confess.
The test is not subjective (what the officer meant), but objective: Could this influence the mind of the accused at the time?
2.8 Conclusion
The presence of an inducement, threat, or promise is the core reason why a confession may be thrown out under Section 22. These three factors attack the voluntary and free nature of a statement, and the law ensures that no person is convicted based on a confession obtained unfairly. Courts carefully examine whether these influences were present and whether they were likely to create pressure or false hope in the accused. If so, the confession cannot be used.
POINT 3: The Inducement, Threat, or Promise Must Come from a Person in Authority
3.1 Introduction to the Requirement
For a confession to be excluded under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, it is not enough that there was an inducement, threat, or promise — it must also have come from a person in authority. This means someone who holds a position of legal, administrative, or investigative power and is capable of influencing the course of the case.
The concept of a “person in authority” is essential because it identifies the source of pressure. The law assumes that when someone in a position of control makes a statement that causes fear or hope, the accused may be mentally forced to confess, even if they are innocent.
3.2 Who is a “Person in Authority”?
A person in authority is anyone who:
- Has official or legal power in relation to the investigation or prosecution of the offence,
- Can influence the outcome of the case, either directly or indirectly,
- May be seen by the accused as having power to affect their fate in the legal process.
This commonly includes:
- Police officers
- Magistrates
- Investigating officers
- Jail superintendents
- Government officers involved in the case
- Revenue officials or customs officers (in special laws)
- Public prosecutors
Even someone without formal power may be treated as a person in authority if the accused believes they have power for example, a respected village elder working closely with the police.
The court focuses not only on the official title but also on the influence the person had in the specific situation.
3.3 Why Does It Matter Who Makes the Inducement or Threat?
The law does not stop all confessions that are made under emotional pressure or influence. It only stops those confessions that come from pressure created by legal authority.
The logic is this: A person in authority can shape the direction of the investigation, recommend bail or arrest, or decide whether to file charges. When such a person makes a promise (“cooperate and I will help you”) or a threat (“refuse to speak and I will arrest you”), it can make the accused feel they have no choice but to confess.
In contrast, if a friend or family member says “Just tell the truth, it’ll be better for you,” this usually does not trigger Section 22 unless they are acting under the control or authority of the police.
3.4 Situations Where Courts Recognize Authority
- A police officer tells the accused, “If you admit now, we’ll close the case fast.”
- A jailor says, “I’ll shift you to an easy ward if you tell the truth.”
- A customs officer says, “If you cooperate, we’ll reduce your charges.”
In each case, the person has or appears to have power, and that power creates an atmosphere of pressure.
3.5 What if the Person Has No Official Authority but Appears to Have Influence?
Courts recognize that even if someone is not legally in charge, they may be seen by the accused as influential. For instance:
- A school principal helping in a juvenile case.
- A local politician seen as working with the police.
- A private security head who detains someone until the police arrive.
If the accused reasonably believes that this person can affect their legal fate, the court may treat them as a person in authority.
This approach reflects the real-life experience of accused persons, especially those with less legal awareness.
3.6 Judicial Position on “Person in Authority”
Courts have emphasized that what matters is how the accused perceives the person. If they feel they are under the control or observation of someone powerful, even indirect remarks or suggestions from that person can destroy the voluntariness of a confession.
In multiple judgments, it has been held that even if the person in authority did not intend to coerce, their position alone can create an undue influence that invalidates the confession.
3.7 Case Law Example:
Kansa Bahera v. State of Orissa (AIR 1987 SC 1504)
In this case, the accused made a confession to the village Pradhan after being promised that he wouldn’t be handed over to police. The Pradhan was not a police officer, but was considered a person in authority due to his influence over village matters and his involvement with law enforcement. The confession was rejected because it was not made voluntarily.
This case shows that social power and influence can amount to legal authority in the context of confessions.
3.8 Conclusion
The concept of a person in authority is central to the protection given by Section 22. It ensures that people do not confess because they feel controlled, manipulated, or cornered by someone with power over their legal fate. Courts look beyond job titles and examine the practical power dynamics in each case. If the source of the inducement, threat, or promise is someone the accused believes can affect their future, the confession becomes legally unreliable and is excluded from evidence.
POINT 4: The Inducement, Threat, or Promise Must Relate to the Charge Against the Accused
4.1 Introduction to the Requirement
For a confession to be excluded under Section 22, it is not enough that there was inducement, threat, or promise. The law also requires that the inducement must relate specifically to the charge or accusation against the person. This means the pressure must be connected to the offence the person is suspected of or has been charged with.
This condition ensures that the law does not unnecessarily exclude confessions made under unrelated circumstances. Only when the inducement directly affects the accused’s response to the particular criminal charge will it make the confession inadmissible.
4.2 What Does “Relating to the Charge” Mean?
The words “relating to the charge” mean that the inducement or threat must influence the accused to make a confession about the offence being investigated or tried. It must be connected to:
- The nature of the offence
- The punishment or consequences of that offence
- The stage of investigation or trial
- Any legal advantage or disadvantage the accused might face because of that offence
This condition helps the court distinguish between general conversations and targeted pressure.
4.3 Examples of Pressure That Relates to the Charge
- “If you admit you stole the money, the case will end here.”
- “Tell us you killed him and we’ll help you get a lighter sentence.”
- “Admit the crime and you won’t be formally arrested.”
- “Accept you sold the drugs, and we won’t file a major charge.”
Each of these clearly connects the pressure to the specific offence the accused is facing. The goal is to make the person confess to the act being investigated, not just any wrongdoing.
4.4 What If the Inducement Is Unrelated?
If the pressure is about another matter, and has no connection to the charge, the confession may still be admissible — unless it also violates other legal standards.
Example:
- A police officer says, “If you confess, I’ll get your son a government job.” This is not directly related to the offence, but could still amount to general inducement if it creates hope of benefit.
- A jail warden says, “If you behave well in prison, you’ll be released early.” If the confession follows this, and the offer was not tied to the charge, the confession may not be excluded under this clause, but may still be tested for voluntariness.
4.5 Legal Reasoning Behind This Requirement
The law wants to prevent misuse of confessions that are made to escape punishment or gain an advantage in a criminal case. The assumption is that when the inducement is connected to the offence, the accused may speak not because they are guilty, but because they think confession is the only way to escape harm.
If the inducement is unrelated, the fear or hope created may not be strong enough to affect voluntariness — and in that case, the court may admit the confession.
This requirement ensures that the confession is not the result of strategic manipulation related to the charges being faced.
4.6 Judicial Viewpoint
Courts have often ruled that where an inducement clearly relates to the specific case against the accused, it vitiates the voluntariness of the confession. However, if the inducement was general or indirect, and had no direct link to the charge, courts may allow the confession depending on the totality of the circumstances.
In many judgments, the phrase “relates to the charge” has been interpreted broadly — not just to the act of confession, but to how the inducement connects the statement to the criminal allegation.
4.7 Case Illustration
Suppose Raju is accused of robbery. During questioning, the officer says, “If you tell us you committed the robbery, I will close the file and make sure you walk free.” If Raju confesses right after this, the court may declare the confession inadmissible, because the promise directly relates to the charge of robbery.
Now suppose Raju was told, “If you confess, we will recommend you for early release in a separate old theft case.” Here, the inducement does not directly relate to the robbery charge, and the confession may not be inadmissible under this clause, although it could still be challenged as involuntary.
4.8 Conclusion
Section 22 excludes confessions only when the pressure put on the accused is directly linked to the charge being investigated or tried. This ensures that confessions made in fear of being punished for the specific crime are not accepted, because they are not truly voluntary. Courts assess whether the inducement would cause the accused to confess just to escape legal consequences, rather than out of a genuine desire to tell the truth. The more closely the inducement or threat is tied to the charge, the stronger the reason for excluding the confession.
POINT 5: The Confession Must Appear to Be Caused by the Inducement, Threat, or Promise
5.1 Introduction to the Requirement
Even if there was an inducement, threat, or promise, a confession will only be excluded under Section 22 if the court believes that it appears to be caused by that inducement. This means that the confession must seem to the judge to be a result of the hope or fear created in the accused's mind. It is not enough that a threat or promise was made — the court must see a connection between the inducement and the confession.
The language used in the Bare Act is important. It says, "appears to the court to have been caused by..." This means that absolute proof is not required — the court only needs to form an opinion based on the surrounding facts and circumstances.
5.2 What Does “Appears to Be Caused” Mean?
This phrase introduces a flexible standard for courts. The judge does not have to find solid, irrefutable evidence that the accused confessed only because of the inducement or threat. Instead, the judge must look at:
- The sequence of events: (Did the confession come soon after the inducement?)
- The accused’s situation: were they in custody or under visible stress?
- The nature of the inducement (Was it serious or casual?)
- The mental state of the accused (Were they vulnerable or scared?)
If all these factors make it reasonable to believe that the inducement affected the accused’s decision to confess, the confession becomes inadmissible.
5.3 The Legal Standard: Probability, Not Certainty
Section 22 adopts a low threshold of proof. The court does not have to be 100% sure. If the confession might have been influenced, and there are reasonable grounds to think so, it will be excluded.
This protects the accused from psychological manipulation or false hope, even in subtle forms. The aim is not just to reject obviously forced confessions, but also those that are unreliable because of invisible pressures.
This standard of “appears to be caused” gives the judge broad discretion but also demands a careful study of context.
5.4 Factors That the Court Considers
- Timing: Did the confession immediately follow the inducement or threat?
- Environment: Was the accused in police custody, isolated, or under surveillance?
- Nature of Words Used: Were they suggestive, intimidating, or manipulative?
- Mental and Physical State of the Accused: Were they tired, sick, anxious, or unrepresented?
- Any Retraction: Did the accused later say they were pressured?
If these factors point toward mental influence, the confession may be excluded.
5.5 Role of Circumstantial Evidence
Sometimes, there is no direct evidence of coercion. In such cases, the court uses circumstantial clues to decide whether the inducement caused the confession. These may include:
- Sudden change in the accused’s behaviour
- Inconsistent or incomplete statements
- Lack of legal counsel at the time of confession
If the overall picture suggests that the confession was not natural or voluntary, the judge can reject it, even without a formal complaint from the accused.
5.6 Burden of Proof
While the prosecution must prove that a confession is voluntary, the defence is allowed to point out anything suspicious. Once suspicion arises, the court must inquire independently and ensure that the confession was not caused by inducement.
The court can even conduct a “trial within a trial” (voir dire) to decide on admissibility before the main trial continues.
5.7 Judicial Interpretation
Courts have emphasized that voluntariness is the key test. Even if a confession looks truthful, it will not be admitted if there is a reasonable chance that it was made under influence. This reflects the idea that justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.
Judges are expected to err on the side of caution. If there's doubt about the cause of a confession, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused.
5.8 Example Illustration
Suppose the police tell an accused, “You should just confess, or this will go badly for you.” The next morning, the accused signs a confession. Later, in court, they say they were scared and thought confessing would stop the harassment.
Even if no physical force was used, the court may find that the confession appears to be caused by the threat — especially if it happened in custody and without a lawyer. The judge can exclude the confession without needing direct evidence of force.
5.9 Conclusion
This requirement allows the court to use common sense and legal experience to assess whether a confession was likely caused by inducement, threat, or promise. The phrase “appears to be caused” gives judges the freedom to protect the rights of the accused, even without strict proof. It ensures that only truly voluntary confessions are accepted and that fairness is prioritised over convenience in the trial process.
POINT 6: The Advantage or Disadvantage Must Be of a Temporal Nature
6.1 Introduction to the Requirement
Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam makes a confession inadmissible only if the inducement, threat, or promise involves an advantage or disadvantage of a temporal nature. This means the pressure placed on the accused must relate to earthly or worldly matters — not spiritual, moral, or emotional concerns. The advantage offered or the harm threatened must relate to real-life outcomes, such as imprisonment, release, punishment, money, or property.
This condition helps the court distinguish between legal coercion and moral influence. Only when the confession is made due to the hope of avoiding or gaining something tangible will it be excluded.
6.2 Meaning of “Temporal Nature”
The term "temporal" comes from Latin and means relating to the present world — as opposed to spiritual or eternal matters. In the legal sense, an advantage or evil of temporal nature refers to material, physical, social, or legal outcomes that affect the accused’s life.
Examples of Temporal Advantages:
- Getting bail
- Reducing sentence
- Dropping charges
- Keeping property
- Avoiding jail
- Transferring to a better prison
Examples of Temporal Evils:
- Physical harm or torture
- Arresting a family member
- Sending to a harsher prison
- Threats of loss of job or income
These are considered serious enough to destroy the voluntariness of a confession. If the accused believes their material life or liberty is at stake, their confession might not be a free choice.
6.3 What Is Not Temporal?
The law draws a line between worldly threats or promises and those that are emotional, moral, or religious. For example:
- A religious leader saying, “Confess your sin to cleanse your soul,” is not a temporal inducement.
- A mother pleading, “Tell the truth for your peace of mind,” is not a temporal promise.
- A spiritual guru warning, “If you lie, you will face divine punishment,” is not a temporal threat.
These may have psychological impact, but they do not relate to the criminal justice system or legal consequences. Therefore, a confession made under such influence may still be admissible.
However, courts have clarified that if such moral or emotional statements come from someone in authority (e.g., a jail official pretending to give spiritual advice), the situation might still fall under Section 22, depending on context.
6.4 Importance of This Condition
This requirement ensures that courts focus on the type of pressure applied. The goal is to prevent manipulation through legal or worldly power, but not to prevent every confession influenced by emotions.
It maintains a balance:
- Protects against abuse of power
- Allows natural expressions of guilt
- Filters out unreliable statements made under legal pressure
This distinction also protects freedom of conscience — people are allowed to confess based on moral regret or ethical conviction without having those confessions automatically rejected.
6.5 Case Law Example
Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1963 SC 1094)
In this case, a confession was made after the accused was told he might get a lighter sentence. The court held that such an assurance constituted a temporal benefit, and therefore the confession was excluded. The Supreme Court emphasized that any hope of material advantage connected to the legal outcome made the confession involuntary.
6.6 How Courts Examine Temporal Pressure
Judges look at:
- What was said and by whom
- How the accused responded
- Whether the benefit or harm was realistic
- Whether the accused’s belief in the benefit/harm was reasonable
For instance, a vague promise like “Things will get better if you speak up” may not be enough. But a clear assurance — “You will walk free if you confess” — is a temporal promise and can render the confession inadmissible.
6.7 Conclusion
The requirement of a “temporal nature” ensures that Section 22 targets practical and legal forms of coercion, not emotional appeals or spiritual advice. The section is meant to stop police or authorities from offering rewards or threatening punishment to get confessions. If the accused confesses in the hope of avoiding real-world consequences, that confession cannot be treated as voluntary. Courts are required to assess whether any material hope or fear led to the statement — and if so, the confession must be excluded to protect justice.
