Confessions to police officers occupy a special and long-standing place in Indian evidence law — under strict statutory bars, with one carefully drawn window for information leading to the discovery of a fact. Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) consolidates the entire regime into a single provision. What were three separate sections in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 25, 26, and 27 — are now sub-sections (1) and (2) and the proviso of Section 23.
23. Confession to police officer. (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.
Consolidation of three IEA sections into one BSA section
Section 23 corresponds to Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA). The BPRD BSA-to-IEA correspondence table records the structural consolidation: the heading of Section 25 IEA loses "not to be proved"; the substance of Section 26 IEA becomes sub-section (2) of Section 23 (with "whilst" replaced by "while" and "such person" by "him"); and the substance of Section 27 IEA becomes the proviso to Section 23. No substantive rule has been changed by the consolidation.
| IEA section | Content | BSA equivalent |
|---|---|---|
| 25 | No confession to police officer to be proved against accused | Section 23(1) |
| 26 | No confession by person in police custody, unless before Magistrate, to be proved | Section 23(2) — "whilst" now "while", "such person" now "him" |
| 27 | How much of information from an accused in custody may be proved | Proviso to Section 23 |
Why the police-confession bars exist
Sub-sections (1) and (2) together form one of the most important protections in Indian criminal procedure. Sub-section (1) makes any confession to a police officer inadmissible against the accused, whether made in custody or not. Sub-section (2) goes further — any confession made while the person is in police custody is inadmissible even if made to someone other than a police officer, unless it is made in the "immediate presence of a Magistrate". The two bars operate on different variables (identity of the recipient in sub-section (1); locus in police custody in sub-section (2)) but share a single underlying concern: the risk of coerced or improperly induced confession where a person is in the power of the investigating agency.
The proviso: the discovery route
The proviso is the single, narrow window into the fortress of exclusion. Where a fact is deposed to as having been discovered in consequence of information received from an accused person in police custody, "so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact discovered, may be proved." The proviso works with surgical precision — it does not admit the whole confession, and it does not admit information that does not relate distinctly to what was actually discovered.
The classic and still-definitive gloss is the Privy Council's decision in Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67. The Council held that "fact discovered" is not confined to the physical object produced; it includes the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to that. The information given must relate distinctly to this fact discovered. Only the portion of the information that meets this test is admissible under the proviso; incidental confessional statements accompanying the information remain excluded.
The "police officer" question, and its practical scope
The three drafting refinements
Working with the neighbouring provisions
Section 23 sits between Section 22, which invalidates confessions caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, and Section 24, which governs the joint-trial situation. The three form the confessions block of Chapter II. A confession must survive Section 22 (voluntariness), Section 23 (police-officer and custody bars), and — where a co-accused is jointly on trial — the calibration of Section 24. Only then does the general rule of Section 25 apply, that the confession, though relevant, is not conclusive proof.
Key Takeaways
- Three IEA sections consolidated: Sections 25, 26, and 27 IEA are now Section 23(1), (2), and the proviso.
- Two absolute bars: no confession to a police officer; no confession in police custody except in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
- One narrow exception: the proviso admits so much of information as relates distinctly to a fact discovered in consequence.
- Pulukuri Kottaya (1947 PC): "fact discovered" includes the place from which the object is produced and the accused's knowledge; only the distinctly relating portion is admissible.
- Drafting-only changes: the heading, "whilst"→"while", and "such person"→"him"; substantive rules unchanged.
Conclusion
Section 23 is a consolidation that leaves the substance untouched. By folding Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the 1872 Act into a single provision, the BSA makes one of the most litigated areas of Indian criminal evidence law easier to read and easier to cite — while preserving both the strict bars against police confessions and the narrow, carefully-controlled discovery window. Pulukuri Kottaya's guidance on what "distinctly relates to the fact discovered" continues to control the proviso, and the section's role at the heart of the confessions regime is undiminished.