​KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Confession Caused by Inducement, Threat, Coercion, or Promise, when Irrelevant in Criminal Proceedings [Section 22 BSA / Sections 24, 28 & 29 IEA]
Introduction
​Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 corresponds to Sections 24, 28, and 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It deals with the admissibility and relevancy of confessions in criminal proceedings, particularly those obtained through inducement, threat, coercion, or promise.
One of the major reforms introduced by the BSA is the consolidation of multiple provisions relating to confessions into a single, comprehensive section. This makes the law more systematic, accessible, and easier to apply.

Meaning of the Provision
Section 22 provides that a confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if it appears to the Court that it has been caused by:

• Inducement,
• Threat,
• Coercion,
• Promise,

proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds for supposing that by making the confession he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil in relation to the proceedings against him.
The object is to ensure that confessions are:

• Voluntary,
• Genuine,
• Free from external pressure.

Purpose of the Provision
The section protects:

• Fair trial rights,
• Personal liberty,
• Reliability of evidence.

A confession obtained through pressure or improper influence may not reflect the truth and therefore should not ordinarily be admitted in evidence.

Major Changes under Section 22 BSA1.
Consolidation of Earlier Provisions
Under the Indian Evidence Act:

• Section 24 dealt with confessions caused by inducement, threat, or promise.
• Section 28 dealt with confessions becoming relevant after removal of such influence.
• Section 29 dealt with circumstances where confessions remain relevant despite certain defects.

The BSA combines these provisions into a single comprehensive section.
Advantage

• Simplifies interpretation.
• Removes fragmentation.
• Creates a more coherent legal framework.

2. Express Inclusion of “Coercion”Position under IEASection 24 IEA referred to:

• Inducement,
• Threat,
• Promise.

The term "coercion" was not expressly mentioned.

Position under BSA
Section 22 expressly includes:

• Coercion.

This broadens the protection available to accused persons and recognizes that confessions may be obtained through various forms of pressure beyond inducement, threat, or promise.
Significance

• Greater protection against involuntary confessions.
• Wider scope of judicial scrutiny.
• Better safeguards for accused persons.

3. Clarification Regarding TimingUnder Section 28 IEA
A confession could become relevant if the impression caused by inducement, threat, or promise had been removed.

Under Section 22 BSA
The provision clarifies that:
A confession becomes relevant once the influence of inducement, threat, coercion, or promise has been fully removed.
Importance

• Provides clearer guidance to courts.
• Emphasizes complete removal of improper influence before admissibility.

4. Expanded Scenarios where Confession Remains Relevan
tThe BSA retains and expands situations where a confession may still be relevant despite certain surrounding circumstances.
A confession does not become irrelevant merely because it was:
(i) Made under a Promise of Secrecy
A voluntary confession remains admissible even if secrecy was promised.

(ii) Obtained through Deception
The mere fact that deception was used does not automatically render the confession irrelevant.

(iii) Made while Intoxicated
A confession made while under the influence of alcohol or intoxication does not automatically become inadmissible.

(iv) Given in Response to Questions not Required to be Answered
The confession may still be relevant even though the accused was not legally bound to answer the questions.

(v) Absence of Warning
A confession does not become irrelevant merely because the accused was not warned that the statement could be used as evidence against him.

Voluntariness – The Key Test
The fundamental test remains:
Whether the confession was made voluntarily.
The Court must determine:

• Whether the accused acted freely,
• Whether his will was overborne,
• Whether any improper influence operated upon his mind.

Only voluntary confessions possess evidentiary value.

Difference between Section 22 BSA and Sections 24, 28 & 29 IEA
Section 22 BSA

• Consolidates three provisions into one.
• Expressly includes coercion.
• Clarifies removal of improper influence.
• Expands circumstances where confession remains relevant.
• More structured and comprehensive.

Sections 24, 28 & 29 IEA

• Scattered across multiple sections.
• Did not expressly mention coercion.
• Less integrated framework.
• Older drafting style.

Important Points

• Section 22 BSA corresponds to Sections 24, 28 and 29 IEA.
• Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion, or promise is irrelevant.
• Coercion expressly added under BSA.
• Voluntariness remains the governing principle.
• Confession becomes relevant after improper influence is fully removed.
• Confession remains relevant even if:
  • Made under promise of secrecy,
  • Obtained through deception,
  • Made while intoxicated,
  • Given in response to questions not required to be answered,
  • No warning was given regarding admissibility.
• BSA adopts a more comprehensive and streamlined approach.

Conclusion
Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 significantly modernizes the law relating to confessions by consolidating the principles previously contained in Sections 24, 28, and 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The express inclusion of coercion, clearer rules regarding removal of improper influence, and expanded treatment of admissible confessions make the provision more comprehensive and protective of individual rights. The section strengthens the requirement that confessions must be voluntary while ensuring clarity and consistency in criminal proceedings.