IEA Section 24 — Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding

Summary

If a court finds that an accused person made a confession because of an inducement, threat, or promise that came from a person in authority, was related to the charge against the accused, and was strong enough to make the accused reasonably believe that confessing would bring some worldly benefit or prevent some worldly harm in the legal proceedings, then that confession cannot be used as evidence in a criminal case.

Official Text

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 promise1, 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.

Referred to by

• CrPC §163 — No inducement to be offered
• IEA §28 — Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise relevant

Related Judgments

• STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs KAMAL AHMED MOHAMMED VAKIL ANSARI & ORS — Supreme Court of India (2013)
• PYARE LAL BHARGAVA vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Supreme Court of India (1962)
• K.I. PAVUNNY vs ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (HEAD QUARTER), CENTRAL EXCISE COLLECTORATE, COCH — Supreme Court of India (1997)
• TOFAN SINGH vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU — Supreme Court of India (2020)
• CHATTAR SINGH AND ANR. vs STATE OF HARYANA — Supreme Court of India (2008)
• DAGDU & OTHERS ETC. vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Supreme Court of India (1977)

Old <-> New Code Mapping

• BSA §22 — Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding