Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding
AI Assist
Summary
A confession is irrelevant if the court finds it was caused by an inducement, threat or promise about the charge, coming from a person in authority. It must be sufficient that a reasonable accused could think confessing would gain an advantage or avoid a temporal harm. Such a confession cannot be used as evidence against the accused.
Example
Ravi, a shopkeeper, is accused of selling stolen goods. A police inspector tells him that if he confesses they will help drop the charge. Ravi confesses to avoid prosecution. Because the confession was caused by a promise from a person in authority that could give him a temporal advantage, the court will treat the confession as irrelevant and not admit it as evidence.
Bare Act
Enacted textA 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 promise1, 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.
- For prohibition of such inducement, etc., see the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), section 316.
Previous year papers
Pick your exam. we'll email the most recent paper.