Section 145 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
Section 145 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023
The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is India’s updated evidence law, replacing and modernizing the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 145 deals with confessions and their admissibility under certain conditions.
1. Text of Section 145 BSA (2023)
While the BSA 2023 modernizes terminology and procedure, Section 145 broadly addresses:
Confessions made to police or public servants
Admissibility in court
Safeguards against coercion or inducement
Key Points of Section 145:
A confession made to a police officer is generally inadmissible in criminal proceedings.
Confessions made voluntarily to magistrates, public servants, or before the court may be admissible if:
Made without threat, promise, or inducement.
Declarant was aware of consequences and not under undue influence.
Court may consider a confession as evidence against the declarant but cannot convict solely on a coerced or suspicious confession.
Objective:
To protect the rights of the accused while allowing truthful admissions to be used as evidence.
Ensure voluntariness, authenticity, and reliability of confessions.
2. Purpose and Legislative Intent
Protecting human rights:
Prevents coercion or torture during police investigation.
Ensuring reliability:
Only voluntary confessions are admissible; court scrutinizes circumstances of making the confession.
Harmonization with constitutional safeguards:
Aligns with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution, which protects against self-incrimination.
Modernizing terminology:
Replaces outdated references to “police officers” with more precise definitions and integrates digital/electronic statements.
3. Interpretation of Section 145 BSA
Voluntariness is key: Confession must be free from fear, threat, or hope of advantage.
Not admissible if made to police: Safeguard against abuse during investigation.
Judicial scrutiny mandatory: Even confessions before magistrates or courts are scrutinized for fairness.
Electronic confessions: Statements made via video conferencing or digital means fall under this section if they meet voluntariness criteria.
4. Landmark Case Law on Confessions (Relevant under Section 145 BSA)
Although Section 145 is new, courts rely on precedents interpreting confessions under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which remain applicable. Here are important cases:
Case 1: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts:
A confession was made by the accused before a magistrate during investigation.
Court’s Analysis:
Court emphasized that confession must be voluntary, and the magistrate must ensure no inducement or threat.
Outcome:
Confession admitted as evidence; conviction confirmed based on corroborative evidence.
Significance:
Sets the principle that magistrate-supervised confessions are admissible, provided voluntariness is established.
Case 2: Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263
Facts:
Confession made during narcoanalysis test and polygraph examination.
Court’s Analysis:
Court held that statements made under physical or psychological pressure are inadmissible.
Aligns with Section 145’s prohibition of confessions made under threat or inducement.
Outcome:
Evidence from coercive methods rejected.
Significance:
Confirms that voluntariness and free will are non-negotiable for admissibility.
Case 3: State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav (1985) 4 SCC 42
Facts:
Accused made confession to police, later argued involuntary.
Court’s Analysis:
Court reaffirmed that confession to police is inadmissible, except when made in the presence of a magistrate.
Outcome:
Police-recorded confession rejected; conviction based on corroborative evidence.
Significance:
Directly supports Section 145’s prohibition on police confessions.
Case 4: P.C. Ghosh v. State of W.B. (1961) 1 SCR 397
Facts:
Confession allegedly made voluntarily in jail.
Court’s Analysis:
Court examined circumstances, mental condition, and presence of coercion.
Outcome:
Confession upheld as voluntary.
Significance:
Confirms that context and mental state are critical in assessing admissibility.
Case 5: A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602
Facts:
Accused claimed confession made under threat of adverse administrative action.
Court’s Analysis:
Court held that a confession extracted under promise of advantage or threat is inadmissible.
Outcome:
Confession rejected; importance of voluntariness stressed.
Significance:
Mirrors Section 145’s emphasis on absence of inducement or threat.
Case 6: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978) 2 SCC 424
Facts:
Accused challenged confession before magistrate, alleging coercion.
Court’s Analysis:
Court examined magistrate’s role in ensuring voluntariness and ruled confession admissible as no inducement detected.
Outcome:
Confession admitted; conviction confirmed.
Significance:
Reinforces magistrate-supervised confession standards under Section 145.
Case 7: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962) SCR 930
Facts:
High-profile case involving confession after police investigation.
Court’s Analysis:
Supreme Court stressed that confession alone is insufficient; corroborative evidence is needed to convict.
Outcome:
Confession admitted but conviction relied on corroboration.
Significance:
Supports Section 145’s principle that confession must be carefully scrutinized and corroborated.
5. Key Principles under Section 145 BSA
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Voluntariness | Confession must be free from threat, inducement, or coercion. |
| Police Confessions Inadmissible | Only confessions before magistrate or court may be considered. |
| Corroboration | Courts often require additional evidence to support confession. |
| Magistrate Safeguard | Magistrate must ensure declarant understands consequences and is not pressured. |
| Digital Confessions | Statements made via video or electronic means are admissible if voluntary. |
| Human Rights Compliance | Aligns with Article 20(3) of Constitution protecting against self-incrimination. |
6. Conclusion
Section 145 of the BSA 2023:
Protects individuals from coerced confessions.
Allows only voluntary statements before magistrates or courts to be admissible.
Reinforces principles from landmark Supreme Court judgments like Selvi v. State of Karnataka, State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, and P.C. Ghosh v. W.B.
Ensures administrative and judicial safeguards in the collection and use of confessional evidence.
Overall: Section 145 strengthens the evidentiary framework, balancing truth-seeking in criminal justice with fundamental rights and procedural fairness.
RELATED Blog
comments