Admissions and Confessions Under the BSA

Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), an admission is any statement, oral, documentary or electronic, that suggests an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and a confession is a kind of admission made by an accused in a criminal case. The rules sit in Sections 15 to 25 of the BSA, which came into force on 1 July 2024 and replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The core rule has not changed: a confession made to a police officer, or in police custody without a Magistrate present, cannot be proved against the accused, but information that leads to the discovery of a fact can be.

This explainer is for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for evidence law papers, and for anyone who wants to know why a "confession" reported in the news may count for nothing in court. Evidence law decides which statements a judge may even look at, so getting these sections right matters in every trial, civil or criminal.

Which sections of the BSA deal with admissions and confessions?

The BSA is Act 47 of 2023. Section 1(3) left the start date to a Central Government notification, and India Code records that date as 1 July 2024, under notification S.O. 849(E) dated 23 February 2024. Section 1(2) applies the Act to all judicial proceedings in or before any court, including courts-martial, but not to affidavits or to proceedings before an arbitrator.

The provisions on admissions and confessions are grouped as follows:

• Section 15: definition of admission (old Section 17 of the Evidence Act).
• Sections 16 to 18: who can make an admission: parties and their agents, persons whose position or liability must be proved, and persons a party has expressly referred to for information.
• Section 19: admissions can be proved against the maker, and only in limited cases by the maker.
• Section 20: oral admissions about the contents of a document.
• Section 21: admissions in civil cases made on an express condition that they will not be used in evidence.
• Section 22: confessions caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise (old Sections 24, 28 and 29).
• Section 23: confessions to the police, in police custody, and the discovery proviso (old Sections 25, 26 and 27).
• Section 24: confession of a co-accused in a joint trial (old Section 30).
• Section 25: admissions are not conclusive proof, but may operate as estoppel (old Section 31).

What counts as an admission?

Section 15 is wide. The statement can be spoken, written or "contained in electronic form", so a WhatsApp message or an email can be an admission. It must suggest an inference about a fact in issue or a relevant fact, and it must be made by one of the persons listed in Sections 16 to 18.

Take a tenant in Madurai who writes to the landlord on email: "I know I am three months behind on rent and will pay by Pongal." In a later eviction suit, the landlord can prove that email against the tenant under Section 19. The tenant generally cannot use his own self-serving statements to help himself, except in the narrow cases Section 19 lists, such as a statement about his own state of mind or body made at the time.

Two limits are worth remembering. Under Section 21, in civil cases, a statement made on an express condition that it will not be used as evidence (a "without prejudice" settlement offer is the usual example) is not relevant. Under Section 25, an admission is not conclusive proof. The other side can explain it away, unless it has created an estoppel.

When is a confession shut out?

The BSA does not define "confession". Read it as an admission by an accused about the offence charged. Three sections then filter it.

1. Section 22 (voluntariness): a confession is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the court thinks it was caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise about the charge, coming from a person in authority, and enough to make the accused think he would gain an advantage or avoid harm. The word "coercion" is new in the BSA text. The provisos keep the old rules: a confession made after that pressure is fully removed is relevant, and a confession is not irrelevant merely because it was obtained by a promise of secrecy, by deception, while drunk, or without a warning.
2. Section 23(1): no confession made to a police officer can be proved against a person accused of any offence. It does not matter whether the person was in custody.
3. Section 23(2): no confession made by anyone in police custody can be proved against him unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.

The safe route for a voluntary confession is a recording by a Magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which corresponds to old Section 164 of the CrPC. Students should read Section 183 itself for the procedure the Magistrate must follow before recording it.

What does the discovery proviso to Section 23 allow?

The proviso to Section 23 lets in "so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not" as relates distinctly to a fact discovered because of information from an accused in police custody. Suppose a student in Nagercoil is arrested for theft of a laptop and tells the police, "I hid the laptop under the stairs of my aunt's house." If the police find it there, the part of the statement that leads to that place is provable. A sentence like "I stole it because I needed money" is not, because it does not relate distinctly to the discovery.

In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), the Supreme Court treated this rule (then Section 27) as an exception to the bar on confessions made in police custody. In exams, frame it the same way: rule first, then the exception, then the limit on how much of the statement goes in.

How far can a co-accused's confession be used?

Section 24 says that when several persons are tried jointly for the same offence and one confesses in a way that affects himself and the others, the court "may take into consideration" that confession against the others too. Explanation I extends "offence" to abetment and attempt. Explanation II, which is new, treats a trial as joint even if one accused has absconded or failed to obey a proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS.

The courts have always kept this evidence on a short leash. In Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1952 SC 159), the Supreme Court said the judge should first assess the other evidence, leaving the confession aside, and then use the confession only to lend assurance to a conclusion already reached. A Constitution Bench repeated this in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964), and the Court relied on both decisions in Navjot Sandhu. A co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence on which a conviction can rest by itself.

How should you answer an exam question on this topic?

• Cite BSA sections first, and give the old Evidence Act section in brackets as a pointer, for example "Section 23(1) BSA (old Section 25)".
• Define admission from Section 15, then explain that every confession is an admission but not every admission is a confession.
• For a problem question, walk through the filters in order: who heard it (police or not), was the accused in custody, was a Magistrate present, was there inducement or coercion, and did it lead to a discovery.
• Point out what the BSA changed: "electronic form" in Section 15, "coercion" in Section 22, and Explanation II to Section 24. Do not overstate the changes, since the structure is the old one.
• Close with the case law on co-accused confessions and the discovery rule, with correct names and years.

If you or someone you know has been asked to sign a statement at a police station, the college legal aid clinic can explain the rights involved.

Sources

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (India Code PDF): official text of Sections 1, 15 to 25 and the commencement note.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (NCRB Sankalan PDF): text of the BNSS, including Section 183 on recording confessions and its correspondence to old Section 164 CrPC.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005), Indian Kanoon: Supreme Court judgment on police confessions, the discovery exception and co-accused confessions.