What Is Section 23 Of BSA 2023?

An accused person’s voluntary admission of guilt is known as confession. Lord Atkin noted in the ruling in Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor (1939) that a confession entails either the admission of the offense or the admission of every detail that makes up the offense. As per Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, a confession made to a police official or while under their custody is legally inadmissible.

Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam

• A confession made to a police officer is not admissible in court, according to Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 
• The core tenet of this clause is that a police officer may subject an arrested individual to severe torture and coerce him into confessing to a crime he may not have committed.  
• It states that a confession given by someone who is being held by a police officer is not admissible unless the person makes it in front of a magistrate.

Important Requirements under Section 23 of BSA

After closely examining the clause, it appears that the following conditions must be met in order to use Section 23 provisions:

• The fact had to have been discovered as a result of the information gathered from the accused.
• The individual making the accusation must provide the information.
• The accused must be under the supervision of a police officer.
• The rest of the material is not admissible; only that which directly relates to the fact found can be demonstrated.
• An item or weapon that was utilized at the time of the crime must be located in light of the information supplied by the accused.
• The recently discovered data needs to be relevant to the alleged crime.

Doctrine of Confession Made to a Police Officer

• The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision to convict the appellant based only on her confessional statement in Champa Rani Mondal v. State of West Bengal (1998). Her conviction had also been upheld by the High Court. Her confession was invalid, according to the Supreme Court, and could not be considered.
• The Supreme Court held in Shabad Pulla Reddy & Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) that the statement made to the magistrate was exculpatory because the accused had only admitted to being a conspirator in a murderous scheme, not a participant in the murder itself.
• The Supreme Court ruled in Sivakumar v. State By Inspector of Police (2005) that confessions made outside of court are not necessarily reliable sources of evidence. Every case must also be evaluated according to its own facts and merits.
• The Supreme Court ruled in Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2003) that extra-judicial confessions are well known to be extremely flimsy forms of evidence. Given the medical evidence, it is even riskier to base a conviction on a tardy confession.

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Section 23 act as a check against the misuse of police power. According to these regulations, any confession made to a police officer or while under their custody is not admissible in court and cannot be used against the accused. This is because there’s a chance that suspects will be forced to confess to crimes they didn’t commit by the use of excessive force by the police. Section 23 offers an exemption to the previously indicated prohibition, allowing certain parts of confessional statements to be included if they are relevant to the identification of information pertaining to the commission of a crime. The tenet of Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam is that an accused person’s confession may be taken as true and not made up if it is supported by the finding of a fact.

One can talk to a lawyer from Lead India for any kind of legal support. In India, free legal advice online can be obtained at Lead India. Along with receiving free legal advice online, one can also ask questions to the experts online free through Lead India.