Section 24 of the Evidence Act: A Detailed Guide to Involuntary Confessions
- Farheen Mukadam
- Aug 28
- 9 min read
Section 24 of the Evidence Act is a crucial safeguard in criminal law that protects an accused person. It ensures that a confession is made freely and not due to any pressure. This article provides a simple explanation of the Section 24 Evidence Act, its essential conditions, and important court cases. It also compares this rule with other sections of the Indian Evidence Act to give a complete picture of the law on involuntary confessions.
Table of Index
What is Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act is a key rule in the Indian legal system. It deals with when a confession made by an accused person cannot be used in court.
The official text of the law is as follows:
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.
In Simple Terms
The meaning of Section 24 is to make sure that any confession used in a criminal case is voluntary. A confession will be considered irrelevant if it is obtained by an inducement, threat or promise. This pressure must come from someone who has authority over the accused, like a police officer. The purpose of this rule is to prevent forced confessions, ensuring that the evidence presented in court is trustworthy and obtained fairly.
The Core Principle: Why are Coerced Confessions Excluded?
The principle behind Section 24 is that a coerced confession is not reliable. If someone is forced to confess, they might say something that isn't true just to stop the pressure. Excluding such confessions protects the core values of the justice system.
This idea is also connected to the right against self-incrimination. This right is protected by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It means that no person accused of any offense can be forced to be a witness against themself. Forced confessions violate this fundamental principle of natural justice.
Essential Ingredients of Section 24: A Checklist
For a confession to be inadmissible under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, certain conditions must be met. These essentials of Section 24 Evidence Act act as a checklist to determine if a confession was voluntary.
1. The Statement Must be a Confession
A statement becomes a confession only when the person making it admits to the crime directly. In the famous case of Pakala Narayana Swami v. King Emperor, the court explained what a confession is.
A confession must:
Directly admit guilt for the offense.
Admit substantially all the facts that make up the offense.
An admission of a serious fact is not enough on its own to be a confession.
2. Made by an Accused Person
The statement must come from the person who is formally charged with the crime. The term 'accused person' in Section 24 refers to someone against whom evidence is being presented in a criminal proceeding.
3. Caused by Inducement, Threat, or Promise
The confession must be the result of some form of pressure. This is a key condition for Section 24 to apply.
Inducement: This means luring the accused with a temptation. For example, offering a benefit like being made a witness instead of a defendant.
Threat: This involves creating fear in the accused's mind. It could be a threat of violence or a threat of being prosecuted with a more serious charge.
Promise: This is an offer of a positive outcome. For instance, promising a lighter sentence or ensuring they get bail.
4. Proceeding from a "Person in Authority"
The pressure must come from someone the accused believes has power over them. A "person in authority" is someone who can influence the case.
Examples of persons in authority include:
A police officer
A magistrate
The complainant or the person who filed the case
An employer, if the crime is related to the workplace
The important factor is whether the accused person reasonably believed that this individual could affect the outcome of the legal proceedings against them.
5. The Goal Must be to Gain an Advantage or Avoid an Evil of a Temporal Nature
The term "temporal" refers to worldly matters, not spiritual ones. The inducement, threat, or promise must relate to the legal consequences of the charge. For example, a promise to help the accused get a reduced sentence is temporal. A statement like "confess to clear your conscience" is not considered a temporal inducement.
Type of Advantage/Evil | Example | Does Section 24 Apply? |
Temporal | "If you confess, I'll make sure you get bail." | Yes |
Temporal | "If you don't confess, we will charge your family members too." | Yes |
Non-Temporal | "Confess now, and God will forgive you." | No |
Non-Temporal | "Telling the truth will be good for your soul." | No |
Visualizing the Test: Is the Confession Admissible?
To simplify the legal test, a flowchart can help visualize if Section 24 applies. This admissibility of confession test ensures all conditions are checked.
Step 1: Is the statement a confession? (Yes/No)
Step 2: Was it made by the accused person? (Yes/No)
Step 3: Was it caused by an inducement, threat, or promise? (Yes/No)
Step 4: Did it come from a person in authority? (Yes/No)
Step 5: Did it relate to a worldly advantage or disadvantage in the case? (Yes/No)
If the answer to all these questions is YES, the confession is inadmissible under Section 24. If any answer is NO, Section 24 does not apply, but other sections might still make it invalid.
Landmark Case Laws Interpreting Section 24
Several important judgments have clarified the scope of Section 24 Evidence Act case laws.
PyareLal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan (1963)
Citation: AIR 1963 SC 1094
Facts of the Case: An accused, a government employee, was charged with theft of official files. He confessed to his superior officer after the officer stated that if he returned the files, the matter would not be reported.
Court's Observation:
The Supreme Court examined whether the superior officer's statement amounted to an inducement under Section 24.
The court held that the statement was a general one that anyone investigating a loss might make and did not constitute a threat or promise related to the criminal charge.
Therefore, the confession was deemed voluntary and admissible.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that the confession was not caused by an inducement that would make it irrelevant under Section 24.
State of UP vs. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960)
Citation: AIR 1960 SC 1125
Facts of the Case: Deoman Upadhyaya was accused of murder. While in police custody, he made a statement that led to the discovery of the murder weapon from a tank.
Court's Observation:
This case primarily dealt with the constitutionality of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is an exception to the rules on confessions.
The court discussed the difference between statements made by an accused in police custody versus one not in custody.
It affirmed that information leading to a discovery of fact is admissible even if it comes from a confession made to the police, as it is a safeguard against coercion.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the provisions allowing such discoveries are valid. It highlighted the balance between protecting the accused from forced confessions and allowing evidence that can be independently verified.
How Section 24 Compares to Other Sections of the Evidence Act
Understanding the difference between Section 24 and 25, 26, 27, and 28 provides a clear view of confession laws.
Feature | Section 24 | Section 25 | Section 26 | Section 27 | Section 28 |
Nature of Confession | Involuntary (due to inducement, threat, or promise) | Made to a police officer. | Made while in police custody to any person. | Information leading to discovery of a fact. | Voluntary confession made after removal of inducement. |
To Whom It's Made | To a person in authority. | To a police officer. | To any person (while in police custody). | To a police officer. | To any person. |
Key Condition | Must be caused by inducement, threat, or promise. | Statement must be a confession to a police officer. | Accused must be in police custody when confessing. | Information must lead to the discovery of a new fact. | The original inducement, threat, or promise must be fully removed. |
Exception | Not applicable if inducement is spiritual. | No exceptions. | Admissible if made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. | This section is an exception to Sections 24, 25, and 26. | Not applicable. |
Result | Irrelevant and inadmissible. | Cannot be proved against the accused. | Cannot be proved against the accused. | So much of the information as relates to the fact discovered can be proved. | Becomes relevant and admissible. |
What Happens if the Inducement is Removed? The Role of Section 28
Section 28 of the Evidence Act acts as a remedy to Section 24. It states that if a confession is made after the effect of the inducement, threat, or promise has been completely removed, it becomes relevant under Section 28.
The court must be satisfied that the accused is making the new confession freely, without any lingering pressure from the original inducement.
Before: An accused confesses under threat that his family will be harmed. This confession is inadmissible under Section 24. After: A magistrate assures the accused of his family's safety and explains that he is under no obligation to confess. If the accused then confesses, this new confession may be admissible under Section 28 because the impression of the threat has been removed.
Conclusion: Key Takeaways on Section 24
This conclusion on confessions highlights the importance of Section 24 as a guardian of fairness in the Indian criminal justice system.
Section 24 summary: It makes a confession irrelevant if it is caused by any inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority.
Its main purpose is to ensure that confessions are reliable and to protect the fundamental right against self-incrimination.
The prosecution must prove that a confession is voluntary.
To apply this section, one must check all its key "ingredients," such as the source of the pressure and the nature of the advantage offered.
Section 28 provides a mechanism for a confession to become valid again if the pressure that caused it is completely removed.
FAQs
Q1. What is the difference between a judicial and extra-judicial confession?
A judicial confession is one made before a magistrate or in court during legal proceedings. An extra-judicial confession is made to any other person outside of a formal judicial setting.
Q2. Is a village panchayat head considered a "person in authority"?
Yes, a village panchayat head can be considered a "person in authority" if the accused believes they have the power to influence the case. This was discussed in the case of Kunja Subudhi v. King-Emperor.
Q3. What is the evidentiary value of a confession retracted later?
A retracted confession can still be used against the accused if the court is satisfied that it was made voluntarily and is true. However, courts usually look for corroborating evidence to support it.
Q4. Who has the burden of proof to show a confession was voluntary?
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove that the confession was made voluntarily and was not the result of any inducement, threat, or promise.
Q5. Can a confession be the sole basis for conviction?
Yes, a conviction can be based solely on a confession if the court is convinced that it is true and was made voluntarily.
Q6. Does Section 24 apply to civil cases?
No, Section 24 applies specifically to a "criminal proceeding."
Q7. Is a confession made to a doctor admissible?
A confession made to a doctor is generally admissible, as a doctor is not usually considered a "person in authority" in relation to a criminal charge. However, it would become inadmissible if it was obtained through any inducement, threat, or promise from someone in authority.
Q8. What does "temporal" evil or gain mean in simple words?
It means a real-world advantage or disadvantage related to the criminal case, like getting a lighter sentence (gain) or avoiding physical harm (avoiding evil). It does not include spiritual or moral benefits.
Q9. Does a promise to save a family member from harassment count as an inducement?
Yes, such a promise would likely be considered an inducement under Section 24, as it creates pressure on the accused to confess to avoid an evil of a temporal nature affecting their family.
Q10. How does Section 24 relate to Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution?
Section 24 supports the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). It ensures that individuals are not compelled to confess against themselves, upholding the principle of a fair trial.
Comments