VoxJuris
Home › Acts › Evidence Act › Chapter II › Section 24

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 · Chapter II: Of the Relevancy of Facts · Admissions

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

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.

Now in the BSA section 22 (Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding)

In plain words

A confession by an accused is irrelevant in a criminal case if it appears to have been caused by an inducement, threat or promise about the charge, from a person in authority, enough to make the accused reasonably think they would gain an advantage or avoid harm in the proceedings by confessing.

A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.

Read the in-depth explanation, with key Supreme Court rulings ↓

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 2promise 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.

Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.

Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here.

Understanding this section

Section 24 makes a confession irrelevant in a criminal case if it was caused by an inducement, threat or promise relating to the charge, coming from a person in authority, and sufficient to make the accused think he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil in the proceedings. It is the voluntariness test for all confessions.

Conditions

  • An inducement, threat or promise.
  • Relating to the charge against the accused.
  • From a person in authority, such as a police officer, Magistrate or employer.
  • Sufficient, in the court's opinion, to give the accused reasonable grounds to suppose he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal (worldly) nature.

Appears to the Court

The section requires only that the inducement appears to the court to have caused the confession. Strict proof is not needed; a reasonable suspicion of an improper influence is enough to exclude it.

Impression removed

Section 28 makes the confession relevant again if made after the impression caused by the inducement has been fully removed. Section 29 adds that a confession is not excluded merely because it was obtained by deception, under a promise of secrecy, or when the accused was drunk.

How sections 24 to 30 fit

Section 24 applies to confessions to anyone. Sections 25 and 26 add absolute bars for confessions to police or in police custody, regardless of voluntariness. Section 27 allows information leading to discovery.

Key Supreme Court rulings

  • Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu 2020 INSC 620

    Held that statements recorded by NDPS officers under section 67 cannot be used as substantive evidence, since those officers are police officers for section 25 and using such statements would violate Articles 14, 20(3) and 21; discussed sections 24 and 30 alongside section 164 of the CrPC.

Common mistakes

  • Requiring strict proof of the inducement; it need only appear to the court.
  • Applying section 24 to spiritual inducements; only temporal advantages count.

Read with: Section 25 Evidence Act, Section 28 Evidence Act, Section 29 Evidence Act, Section 22 BSA

Prepared with AI assistance as a study aid. Every ruling listed was checked against the Supreme Court's own judgments on this site, and quoted words appear in those judgments; linked names open the full judgment. Read the judgments themselves before relying on them. Not legal advice.

Supreme Court judgments citing the section 24