Quick Answer
Sections 17-31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, governing admissions and confessions, have been replaced by Sections 15-25 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). The most significant change is structural: the BSA consolidates three separate police confession provisions (Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Evidence Act) into a single Section 23. Substantively, the BSA adds "coercion" as an explicit ground for excluding confessions under Section 22, updates references to include electronic admissions, and replaces references to the Indian Penal Code with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The core principles — that admissions are relevant but not conclusive, and that confessions to police are inadmissible unless made before a Magistrate — remain unchanged.
What Changed
| Feature | Sections 17-31, Evidence Act | Sections 15-25, BSA |
|---|---|---|
| Number of sections | 15 sections (17-31) | 11 sections (15-25) |
| Definition of admission | Statement suggesting inference as to fact in issue (S.17) | Identical wording, includes electronic form (S.15) |
| Confession to police | Three separate sections: S.25 (to police officer), S.26 (in custody), S.27 (discovery) | Single consolidated S.23 with three sub-sections |
| Grounds for exclusion | Inducement, threat, or promise (S.24) | Inducement, threat, coercion, or promise (S.22) |
| Removal of impression | S.28 — separate section | Merged as proviso to S.22 |
| Confession under secrecy/deception | S.29 — separate section | Merged as second proviso to S.22 |
| Confession affecting co-accused | S.30 | S.24 (substantively unchanged) |
| Admissions not conclusive | S.31 | S.25 (substantively unchanged) |
| Cross-references | References to Indian Penal Code | References to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 |
Full Statutory Text (Key Provisions)
Section 17, Evidence Act — Admission Defined
An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
Section 15, BSA — Admission Defined
An admission is a statement, oral or documentary or contained in electronic form, which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
Section 24, Evidence Act — Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat or Promise
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 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.
Section 22, BSA — Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat, Coercion or Promise
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.
Section 25, Evidence Act — Confession to Police Officer
No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Section 26, Evidence Act — Confession in Police Custody
No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
Section 23, BSA — Confession to Police Officer (Consolidated)
(1) No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
(2) No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person:
Provided that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.
Key Differences
Consolidation of police confession provisions. The BSA merges Sections 25 (confession to police officer), 26 (confession in police custody), and 27 (discovery statements) of the Evidence Act into a single Section 23 with sub-sections. This is the most significant structural change in the admissions chapter — three heavily litigated provisions are now read together as a unified rule with an exception.
"Coercion" added to exclusionary grounds. Section 22 of the BSA adds "coercion" alongside inducement, threat, and promise as grounds for excluding a confession. While courts had already treated physical coercion as falling within "threat" or "inducement" under the old Act, its express inclusion removes any interpretive ambiguity and strengthens the accused's protection.
Merger of Sections 28 and 29 into provisos. The Evidence Act treated the "removal of impression" rule (Section 28) and the "confession under secrecy/deception" rule (Section 29) as separate sections. The BSA merges both into provisos appended to Section 22, creating a more logical legislative structure — the exception is read immediately after the rule.
Potential narrowing of discovery exception. Under the Evidence Act, Section 27 operated as a standalone exception applicable broadly. Under BSA Section 23, the discovery proviso is attached specifically to sub-section (2) — the custodial confession rule. Some scholars argue this narrows its scope to only custodial situations, though courts have not yet definitively ruled on this point.
Modernised cross-references. All references to the Indian Penal Code have been replaced with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, reflecting the new criminal law framework that came into force on 1 July 2024.
Electronic admissions fully integrated. The definition of admission in Section 15 retains the reference to statements "contained in electronic form", consistent with the BSA's broader digital evidence framework under Sections 57-63.
What This Means for Practitioners
The consolidation of police confession provisions into Section 23 will change how practitioners cite and argue these provisions. Defence counsel challenging a confession will now cite "Section 23(1) BSA" instead of "Section 25 Evidence Act" for confessions to police officers, and "Section 23(2) BSA" instead of "Section 26 Evidence Act" for custodial confessions. The discovery exception under the proviso to Section 23(2) replaces the old Section 27 citation.
The addition of "coercion" in Section 22 provides a direct statutory hook for challenging confessions obtained through physical force, sleep deprivation, or other coercive interrogation techniques. While the old law covered these situations through judicial interpretation of "threat" and "inducement", practitioners can now point to the express statutory language — making it easier to frame objections and argue exclusion at trial.
For prosecutors, the potential narrowing of the discovery exception under the proviso to Section 23(2) deserves careful attention. If courts interpret the proviso as limited to custodial situations only, information leading to discovery of facts received from an accused who is not in custody (but who makes a statement to a police officer) may face admissibility challenges under Section 23(1), which has no such proviso.
Does Old Case Law Still Apply?
Yes, with qualifications. The landmark Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (AIR 1939 PC 47), which defined "confession" as a statement admitting substantially all the facts constituting the offence, remains authoritative since the BSA does not alter the concept of what constitutes a confession.
Case law interpreting the scope of "police officer" under Section 25 (State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, AIR 1960 SC 1125) applies equally to Section 23(1) BSA. Similarly, jurisprudence on "immediate presence of a Magistrate" under Section 26 (including the debate over executive versus judicial magistrates) carries over to Section 23(2) BSA.
The one area where old case law requires careful application is Section 27 discovery statements. Decisions like Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor (AIR 1947 PC 67) interpreted Section 27 as a standalone provision. Under the BSA, the discovery exception is a proviso to Section 23(2), and its scope may be interpreted differently. Practitioners should watch for early judicial pronouncements on this point.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has the definition of "confession" changed under the BSA? No. The BSA does not define "confession" — it remains governed by the Privy Council's definition in Pakala Narayana Swami (1939): a statement that admits substantially all the facts constituting the offence. The distinction between an admission and a confession, developed through case law, remains intact.
Can a confession made under coercion now be more easily excluded? Yes. Section 22 BSA expressly lists "coercion" as a ground for exclusion alongside inducement, threat, and promise. While courts previously interpreted "threat" broadly to cover physical coercion, the express statutory language makes it easier for defence counsel to argue exclusion without relying on judicial interpretation alone.
Does the consolidation of Sections 25, 26, and 27 change the law on discovery statements? The substantive rule remains the same — only so much of an accused's information as relates distinctly to the fact discovered is admissible. However, the structural change (making the discovery exception a proviso to Section 23(2) rather than a standalone section) may have implications for its scope. Courts will need to determine whether the proviso applies only to custodial confessions under sub-section (2) or extends to all confessions covered by Section 23.
Do admissions in electronic form have any special treatment? No special treatment beyond what already existed. Section 15 BSA, like Section 17 of the Evidence Act, includes statements "in electronic form" within the definition of admission. The broader electronic evidence framework under BSA Sections 57-63 governs the admissibility of electronic records generally.