Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat or Promise
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 dealt with the admissibility of a confession made by an accused person. Under the law applicable before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 came into force, a confession was irrelevant in a criminal proceeding when the statutory conditions showing that it was caused by an inducement, threat or promise were satisfied.
Meaning and purpose of Section 24
A confession is an admission by an accused concerning the offence or facts constituting the offence. Section 24 was intended to exclude a confession where the circumstances described in the section indicated that the accused might reasonably have believed that confessing would secure an advantage or avoid a temporal evil in relation to the criminal proceeding.
The section therefore focused on whether the confession was caused by an improper inducement, threat or promise connected with the charge and emanating from a person in authority.
Text and substance of Section 24
Section 24 - Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.
In substance, a confession made by an accused was irrelevant where it appeared to the Court to have been caused by an inducement, threat or promise referring to the charge, proceeding from a person in authority, and sufficiently strong to give the accused reasonable grounds for supposing that the confession would obtain an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature in relation to the proceedings.
Essential conditions for exclusion of a confession
For Section 24 to operate, the Court had to examine the circumstances in which the confession was made. The statutory ingredients included the following:
- There must be a confession by an accused person. The provision specifically concerned a confession made by a person accused of an offence.
- There must be an inducement, threat or promise. The Court had to consider whether such influence caused the making of the confession.
- It must have reference to the charge. The inducement, threat or promise had to relate to the accusation or charge faced by the accused.
- It must proceed from a person in authority. The source of the inducement, threat or promise was a material statutory requirement.
- It must be sufficient in the Court's opinion. The circumstances had to be capable of giving the accused reasonable grounds for the relevant supposition.
- The expected benefit or harm must concern the proceedings. The accused must reasonably suppose that confessing would obtain an advantage or avoid an evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings.
What does "person in authority" mean?
The expression is important because Section 24 did not exclude a confession merely because some person made a statement or suggestion. The inducement, threat or promise had to proceed from a person whose position or relationship to the prosecution, investigation or accused could carry authority in the circumstances. Whether a person was a "person in authority" depended on the facts and the nature of that person's influence over the accused or the proceedings.
What is an "evil of a temporal nature"?
The statutory phrase referred to a worldly or practical disadvantage connected with the proceedings, as distinguished from purely spiritual or moral consequences. Section 24 required the Court to consider whether the accused could reasonably suppose that making the confession would help obtain an advantage or avoid such a disadvantage in relation to the criminal case.
Connection with voluntariness of confession
Section 24 formed part of the statutory safeguards governing confessions. Its operation depended on the causal connection between the prohibited inducement, threat or promise and the making of the confession. The Court therefore examined the surrounding circumstances rather than treating every confession as admissible merely because it was made.
Related provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 24 should be read with the neighbouring provisions governing confessions. Section 25 dealt with confessions made to police officers; Section 26 dealt with confessions made while an accused was in police custody, subject to its statutory exception; Section 27 dealt with the limited proof of information received from an accused in police custody leading to discovery; Section 28 addressed a confession made after the impression caused by an inducement, threat or promise had been fully removed; and Sections 29 and 30 dealt with other aspects of confessional evidence.
Related provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Under the pre-BNSS criminal procedure framework, Section 163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prohibited a police officer or other person in authority from offering or making an inducement, threat or promise of the kind mentioned in Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Section 164 CrPC governed the recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate and contained safeguards directed to voluntariness.
Practical effect of Section 24
If the Court concluded that the requirements of Section 24 were satisfied, the confession was irrelevant in the criminal proceeding. The inquiry was fact-sensitive and involved the nature of the inducement, threat or promise, its source, its connection with the charge, its effect upon the accused and whether the statutory test of a reasonable supposition of advantage or avoidance of temporal evil was met.
Pre-Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam position
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governed this subject before the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 commenced on 1 July 2024. This page is intentionally focused on Section 24 and the legal position under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 before that commencement date.
This article is for general legal information. Application of evidentiary rules depends on the facts, dates, governing statute and judicial interpretation applicable to the particular proceeding.