Sections 17-31 Evidence Act to Sections 15-25 BSA: Admissions and Confessions Explained (2026)

In India, the rules on admissions and confessions in Sections 17–31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) are now Sections 15–25 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). Sixteen sections become eleven. The police-confession rules (IEA ss.25–27) merge into BSA s.23, and IEA ss.24, 28 and 29 into s.22, which adds "coercion" to inducement, threat or promise.

At a glance

Rules of evidence: no punishment or classification applies.

Old section	New section	Rule in one line	Change type
IEA s.17	BSA s.15	Admission defined	Identical
IEA s.18	BSA s.16	Admissions by party, agent, interested persons, predecessors	Minor edit
IEA s.19	BSA s.17	Admissions by persons whose position must be proved	Identical
IEA s.20	BSA s.18	Admissions by persons expressly referred to	Identical text; illustration punctuation edited
IEA s.21	BSA s.19	Proof of admissions by or against the maker	Minor edit
IEA ss.22, 22A	BSA s.20	Oral admissions as to contents of documents (and, on a reading via s.2(1)(d), electronic records)	Identical (s.22); Omitted (s.22A)
IEA s.23	BSA s.21	Admissions in civil cases made on condition of no evidence	Minor edit
IEA ss.24, 28	BSA s.22 and first proviso	Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise; relevant once the impression is removed	Expanded ("coercion")
IEA s.29	BSA s.22, second proviso	Secrecy, deception, drunkenness, no warning do not exclude	Minor edit
IEA s.25	BSA s.23(1)	Confession to police officer not provable	Minor edit
IEA s.26	BSA s.23(2)	Confession in police custody not provable unless before a Magistrate	Minor edit; Explanation omitted
IEA s.27	BSA s.23(2), proviso	Information leading to discovery provable	Minor edit
IEA s.30	BSA s.24	Co-accused's confession in joint trial	Expanded (Explanation II)
IEA s.31	BSA s.25	Admissions not conclusive, may estop	Identical

What changed

Expanded — "coercion" (BSA s.22). IEA s.24: "caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge". BSA s.22: "caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise having reference to the charge". The first proviso (formerly IEA s.28) also reads "inducement, threat, coercion or promise". The BSA does not define "coercion".
Minor edit — IEA ss.28 and 29 become provisos to s.22. "If such a confession as is referred to in section 24 is made after…" becomes "Provided that if the confession is made after…"; IEA s.29 becomes "Provided further that…", with "practiced" spelt "practised".
Minor edit; Explanation omitted — IEA ss.25–27 become s.23. "police-officer, shall be proved" becomes "police officer shall be proved"; in s.23(2) "whilst" becomes "while", "unless it be made" becomes "unless it is made" and "as against such person" becomes "against him". The IEA s.26 Explanation (a village head discharging magisterial functions is not a "Magistrate" unless he exercises a Magistrate's powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1882) is omitted. In the discovery proviso, "inconsequence" in the official IEA text becomes "in consequence" and "the fact thereby discovered" becomes "the fact discovered".
Expanded — Explanation II to s.24. "A trial of more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section." The old Explanation is now Explanation I.
Omitted — IEA s.22A. It made oral admissions about electronic records irrelevant "unless the genuineness of the electronic record produced is in question". BSA s.20 speaks of "a document", which s.2(1)(d) defines to include "electronic and digital records". On a reading of the text, s.20 now governs electronic records with both its gateways: entitlement to give secondary evidence, or genuineness in question.
Minor edits — admissions. s.21: "barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil" becomes "advocate" and "section 126" becomes "sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 132". s.19: "section 32" becomes "section 26" and "section 32, clause (2)" becomes "clause (b) of section 26"; Calcutta and Lahore become Kolkata and Chennai; "counterfeit coin" becomes "counterfeit currency"; illustration (e) drops "for the reasons stated in the last preceding illustration". s.16: one run-on section with marginal sub-headings becomes sub-sections (1) and (2).

Statutory text (relevant extract)

Extract — Section 22, BSA (main rule):

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 … for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature …

Extract — Section 23, BSA:

(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 while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved against him: 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 discovered, may be proved.

How it works — admissions, then confessions

What counts (s.15). A statement, oral, documentary or electronic, suggesting an inference about a fact in issue or relevant fact, made by a person listed in ss.16–18.
Who makes it (ss.16–18). A party, or an agent the Court regards as authorised; persons suing in a representative character (only while they held it); persons with a proprietary or pecuniary interest, and predecessors in interest, during that interest; a person whose position must be proved (s.17: C's statement that he owed B rent binds A, B's rent collector); a person the party expressly referred to (s.18: "Go and ask C").
Against whom (s.19). Provable against the maker. The maker may prove his own admission only if it would be relevant under s.26 were he dead, if it records a contemporaneous state of mind or body backed by conduct, or if it is relevant otherwise. In illustration (c), A, accused of a crime at Kolkata, may prove his own letter dated at Chennai that day.
Limits and effect (ss.20, 21, 25). Oral admissions about a document's contents need a secondary-evidence gateway or a genuineness issue. In civil cases, admissions made on condition that evidence of them is not given are irrelevant. Admissions are not conclusive but may estop (Chapter VIII, from s.121).
Voluntariness (s.22). A confession is irrelevant if the Court thinks it caused by an inducement, threat, coercion or promise, relating to the charge, from a person in authority, that would give the accused reasonable grounds to expect a temporal advantage or to avoid a temporal evil. It is relevant once that impression is "fully removed". Secrecy, deception, drunkenness or a missing warning do not by themselves exclude it.
Police bar (s.23). A confession to a police officer is never provable against the accused. One made in police custody is provable only if made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Under the proviso, information from an accused in custody that "relates distinctly to the fact discovered" may be proved.
Co-accused (s.24). In a joint trial for the same offence, a proved confession implicating the maker and a co-accused may be considered against both; illustration (b) excludes it where the maker is not being jointly tried. Explanation II deems a trial in an absconding accused's absence a joint trial.

What this means in practice

For the investigating officer. A confession to you is inadmissible (s.23(1)); an accused who wishes to confess goes before a Magistrate under BNSS s.183. Statements recorded under BNSS s.180 are unsigned and usable at trial only as BNSS s.181(1) allows. Record a discovery precisely: only what "relates distinctly to the fact discovered" is provable.
For the Magistrate recording a confession. BNSS s.183(2) requires a warning that the person need not confess and that the confession may be used against him, and "reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily". A person who declines cannot then be sent to police custody (s.183(3)). Audio-video recording in the presence of the accused's advocate is permitted (first proviso to s.183(1)).
For the accused and defence counsel. Test every confession against s.22 (the person in authority, what was said, whether the impression was removed) and s.23 (to whom, in whose custody). Argue the meaning of "coercion" from the text. Article 20(3) of the Constitution separately provides that no accused "shall be compelled to be a witness against himself".
For the prosecutor in multi-accused cases. Build the case against each accused on independent evidence first; a co-accused's confession can only lend assurance (Hari Charan Kurmi). Where a co-accused has absconded after a BNSS s.84 proclamation, consider Explanation II.
For civil litigants. Correspondence and statements by agents or predecessors can be admissions (ss.16–18); make settlement communications on an express condition that evidence of them is not to be given (s.21).

Judgments that still matter

Apart from the changes above, the BSA repeats the operative words of IEA ss.17–31, so on a reading of the text judgments construing them remain relevant. None of the judgments below construes the BSA.

Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi, [1960] 1 S.C.R. 773 (1959 INSC 118), decided 22 September 1959. M. Hidayatullah J. delivered the judgment of a three-judge bench in a suit over whether a Nasik temple and its Sansthan formed a charitable and religious trust. The appellant and his predecessors had repeatedly admitted the properties were Devasthan inams. The Court held: "An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon, and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous." The burden lay on the appellant to show the admissions were erroneous, and he failed. Why it matters now: BSA s.25 repeats IEA s.31.

Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 689 (1962 INSC 296), decided 22 October 1962. K. Subba Rao J. delivered the judgment of a four-judge bench. A government Superintendent confessed to the Chief Secretary, who had said he would otherwise hand the matter to the police. The Court identified four conditions for exclusion under IEA s.24, and held that a prima facie opinion on the evidence and circumstances suffices in place of the strict standard of proof. On the test, "while the opinion is that of the court, the criterion is the reasonable belief of the accused". The Chief Secretary was a person in authority, but the concurrent finding that his words were not a threat stood; the retracted confession was corroborated and the appeal was dismissed. Why it matters now: BSA s.22 keeps every element of that test and adds "coercion" to the causes.

Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, [1966] 1 S.C.R. 134 (1965 INSC 126), decided 4 May 1965. R.S. Bachawat J. delivered the judgment of a three-judge bench. The accused himself lodged a first information report confessing to four murders. The Court held that "The terms of s. 25 are imperative." The bar covers every incriminating admission in the confessional statement, not only the admission of the offence: "If the confession is tainted, the taint attaches to each part of it." (report p. 140). It added that "Section 27 is in the form of a proviso, and partially lifts the ban imposed by ss. 24, 25 and 26." Applying this, it held that no part of the confessional first information report was admissible except so far as s.27 lifted the ban or the report identified the accused as its maker (report p. 143). The conviction was set aside. Why it matters now: BSA s.23(1) repeats s.25; the judgment does not address the new placement of the discovery rule under s.23(2).

Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 623 (1964 INSC 23), decided 3 February 1964. P.B. Gajendragadkar C.J. delivered the judgment of a five-judge bench. It held that a confession under IEA s.30 is not "evidence" as defined in s.3, though it is an element the Court may consider. The Court "cannot start with the confession of a co-accused person". It must first assess the other evidence, and only then is it "permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence". The High Court had considered the co-accused's confessions first and treated the rest of the evidence as corroborating them; the two appellants were acquitted. Why it matters now: BSA s.24 repeats the operative words of s.30, and Explanation II extends the "joint trial" in which it operates.

Which law applies to your case

Under BSA s.170(2), any trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before the Adhiniyam came into force (1 July 2024) is dealt with under the IEA, so a confession in such a case is tested under IEA ss.24–30. On a reading of s.170(2), a proceeding begun later applies BSA ss.22–24, including "coercion" and Explanation II. For the full analysis see which law applies to an offence before 1 July 2024.

Frequently asked questions

What are the BSA equivalents of Sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act? Sections 15 to 25 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 replace Sections 17 to 31 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sixteen IEA sections, counting Section 22A, become eleven. The main consolidations are IEA Sections 24, 28 and 29 into BSA Section 22, and IEA Sections 25, 26 and 27 into BSA Section 23.

What does adding coercion to Section 22 BSA change? IEA Section 24 excluded a confession caused by an inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority. BSA Section 22 adds "coercion" to that list, both in the main rule and in the first proviso, which admits a confession made after the impression has been fully removed. The BSA does not define coercion, and no judgment construing the new word was read for this page.

Can a confession made to a police officer be used against the accused under the BSA? No. Section 23(1) BSA, which repeats IEA Section 25, says no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. In Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1965 INSC 126) the Supreme Court held the bar to be imperative and to cover the whole confessional statement, including a confessional first information report, save so far as the discovery rule (then Section 27, now the proviso to Section 23(2)) lifts it.

How is a confession recorded validly after 1 July 2024? Section 23(2) BSA allows a confession made in police custody to be proved only if made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 183 BNSS, which replaces Section 164 CrPC, requires the Magistrate to explain that the person is not bound to confess and may record the confession only if he has reason to believe it is voluntary. The first proviso to Section 183(1) permits recording by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the accused's advocate.

Can a co-accused's confession be used against another accused? Section 24 BSA, repeating IEA Section 30, lets the Court take into consideration a proved confession of one of several persons tried jointly for the same offence against the others. In Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964 INSC 23) a five-judge bench held that such a confession is not substantive evidence; the Court must begin with the other evidence and may use the confession only to lend assurance. Explanation II now treats a trial held in the absence of an absconding accused as a joint trial.

Are admissions conclusive under the BSA? No. Section 25 BSA, repeating IEA Section 31, says admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, though they may operate as estoppels. In Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (1959 INSC 118) the Supreme Court described an admission as the best evidence an opposing party can rely on, decisive unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous.

Which Act applies to a confession in a case pending on 1 July 2024? Section 170(2) BSA provides that any trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal pending immediately before the Adhiniyam came into force is dealt with under the Indian Evidence Act as if the BSA had not come into force. A confession in such a case is tested under IEA Sections 24 to 30. On a reading of Section 170(2), the addition of coercion and Explanation II to Section 24 apply only where the BSA governs.

Sources

Acts and sections read (BSA and BNSS from the Gazette; Indian Evidence Act from the official text): BSA ss.2(1)(d), 15–25, 121, 132(1), 170; IEA ss.17–31 including s.22A; BNSS ss.84(1), 180(1), 181(1), 183(1)–(4); Constitution, Art. 20(3).

Judgments read (full text, Veritect Supreme Court corpus): Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi (1960_1_773_806_EN.md); Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (S_1963_1_689_699_EN.md); Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar (1966_1_134_144_EN.md); Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964_6_623_636_EN.md).

This page explains the statutory text and the judgments cited as they stand. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult an advocate.

Section 17-31 Evidence Act vs Section 15-25 BSA — Admissions and Confessions