Section 23: Confession to police officer

Corresponding Evidence Act provision

As given in the correspondence table of the National Crime Records Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs). Read both texts before relying on it. NCRB table

Leading cases

• Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020)Decided on Evidence Act section 25By majority, officers invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are police officers for Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and a statement recorded under Section 67 cannot be used as a confession at trial.
• Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008)Decided on Evidence Act section 25Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, which place a reverse burden on the accused, are not unconstitutional, but the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts strictly; as recovery was not proved, the conviction was set aside.
• Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India (2008)Decided on Evidence Act section 25An officer acting under Section 67 read with Section 42 of the NDPS Act is not a police officer, so a voluntary statement made to him can be used as a confession against its maker and alone sustain a conviction.
• Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union of India (1990)Decided on Evidence Act section 25Officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence invested with police station officer powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not 'police officers' under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so confessions made to them are not barred.
• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961)Decided on Evidence Act section 27Taking specimen handwriting, signatures or finger, palm or foot impressions from an accused does not violate Article 20(3), and Section 27 of the Evidence Act is valid unless the information was obtained by compulsion.
• Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020)Decided on Evidence Act section 27Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC need not be limited to a fixed period and may continue till the end of trial, though courts may impose conditions, including limits on time, where the facts of a case require.
• Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)Decided on Evidence Act section 27Compulsory narcoanalysis, polygraph and BEAP tests violate Article 20(3) and Article 21; no one may be forcibly subjected to them, and even voluntary test results are inadmissible, though facts later discovered may be proved under Section 27.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005)Decided on Evidence Act section 27In the Parliament attack case the Court held a POTA confession inadmissible against co-accused, upheld Mohd. Afzal's conviction and death sentence, convicted Shaukat only under Section 123 IPC, and upheld the acquittals of S.A.R. Gilani and Afsan Guru.

Questions on this section

21 questions in 56 of our papers cite Section 23. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000), the accused, while in custody, pointed out the place where the body had been concealed, without saying that he had concealed it himself. The Supreme Court held that:

   A.no inference at all can be drawn against the accused unless he also states that he himself concealed the body thereB.if he does not explain that he saw another conceal it or was told of it, the Court may presume he concealed itC.the pointing out proves only knowledge of the place, and the Court is barred from inferring that he concealed itD.such a pointing out is admissible only if made in the presence of two independent witnesses and a Magistrate
   Show answer

2. 2. Following a disclosure statement of the accused in police custody, a blood-stained garment is recovered at his instance. No independent witness signs the recovery memo. In State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil (2000), the Supreme Court held that:

   A.the police officer's evidence of such a recovery must be presumed untrustworthy unless it is corroborated by the accusedB.the absence of an independent witness is not by itself a ground to discard the recoveryC.a recovery under the discovery provision is void unless the memo is attested by at least two independent witnesses of the localityD.a recovery without independent witnesses can be relied on only if a Magistrate was present when the article was recovered
   Show answer

3. 3. In State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960), a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, by majority, considered the rule now in the proviso to Section 23 of the BSA (Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872) and held that:

   A.the rule is void under Article 14, as it discriminates between accused persons in and out of custodyB.the rule is valid, as the distinction between persons in custody and persons not in custody is a real oneC.the rule is valid, but it applies only to information that does not amount to a confessionD.the rule is void under Article 20(3), as information given by an accused in custody is always compelled
   Show answer