Confession to police-officer not to be proved
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with confession to police-officer not to be proved. No confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. The Act came into force on 01 Sep 1872. Repealed by section 170 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (47 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
No confession made to a police-officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Section 25, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872).
Now in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
BSA 23 Confession to police officer Text carried over almost unchanged 88%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-13.pdf 2019-04-24 (not same-date ROP order-14). Crl A 714/2019. DATE-CHECK flagged 1996-04-10 because the FIR is quoted in the facts; the document is the K.M. Joseph J. reportable judgment. A s.161 statement, even if it contains an admission, is barred by CrPC 162 at the charge-framing stage. A confession to police is also barred by IEA 25. Charge cannot rest on co-accused police statements alone. Map crpc 162 and iea 25.
On this section: s.25: no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused. A s.161 statement that is a confession is independently inadmissible; even an admission in that statement is then caught by CrPC 162 (Dipakbhai).
-
Tofan Singh vs The State of Tamil Nadu through the Ineliigence Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Officers designated under Section 53 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 are 'police officers' within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Consequently, any confessional statement made to such officers is barred from being used as evidence under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act, as Section 67 is limited to calling for information and examining persons during an inquiry antecedent to investigation, not for recording confessions as substantive evidence.
On this section: No confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence - central provision in dispute
-
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, conviction is justified when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person, and a complete chain of events is established linking the accused to the crime. Confessional statements made to police, while inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, may be used as source of information to discover facts under Section 27, and such discoveries based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events can support conviction when combined with other credible evidence. In evaluating concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless findings are vitiated by grave error of law or lead to serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Confession to police officer inadmissible - central legal issue; court held confessions made to police are inadmissible but do not bar conviction if other evidence exists
-
Sunderlal Kanaiyalal Bhatija vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Confessional statements recorded under Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 are admissible in evidence only in trials for offences under the TADA Act or rules framed thereunder. Such confessions cannot be used in separate criminal cases where TADA charges have been dropped and the trial is only for offences under the Indian Penal Code or other laws. The exception created by Section 15 to the general rule in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act applies only when the trial is for TADA offences. When offences are tried together in the same trial as connected offences under Section 12 of TADA, confessions remain admissible even if the accused is acquitted of TADA charges, but this principle does not extend to separate trials in different cases.
On this section: General rule that confessions made to police officers are not admissible. Court held that Section 15 of TADA Act creates an exception to this rule, but only for TADA trials.
-
Rakesh Anand vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, where a complete chain of circumstances is established linking the accused to the commission of the offence, such circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and is as reliable as direct eyewitness evidence. The doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits evidence of facts discovered as a consequence of information given by the accused, notwithstanding that the information itself may constitute a confession barred under Section 25. Appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial courts and confirmed by high courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, error of procedure, misreading of evidence, or would result in serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Bars confession made to any police officer from being used as evidence against the accused; principle established through extensive judicial interpretation.
-
Ashiq Hussain Faktoo vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable to challenge a final criminal conviction after review petitions have been filed and dismissed. The doctrine of ex debito justitiae, though it recognizes a debt of the justice system to correct judicial errors, is strictly limited to situations involving violation of natural justice (lack of notice or fair procedure) or erosion of public confidence in the justice delivery system through judicial bias or association with parties. Merely perceived erroneous application of law or facts, however manifestly unjust it may appear to a litigant, does not invoke the doctrine of ex debito justitiae or reopen concluded convictions. All post-conviction remedies must be pursued through established procedural channels (review petitions and curative petitions) in accordance with judicial norms, and procedural law cannot be circumvented based on subjective notions of injustice.
On this section: Inadmissibility of confessions made to police; provides foundational rule that confessions made to police officers are generally inadmissible as evidence
-
Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitnesses, when confessions to police lead to discovery of incriminating materials (weapons, cartridges, stolen items) through Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and when multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence form a complete and unbroken chain of events establishing motive, opportunity, and participation in the crime, the conviction of the accused can be sustained. The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, procedure, or misreading of evidence resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. Minor discrepancies and gaps in eyewitness testimony do not vitiate an otherwise strong and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence when the totality points conclusively to guilt.
On this section: Admissibility of confessions to police - Central issue in appeal; Court held that confessions to police are categorically barred but facts discovered therefrom are admissible under Section 27
-
Om Prakash vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, are non-cognizable in the sense that police officers cannot arrest without warrant and cannot investigate without Magistrate's order under Section 155 Cr.P.C. However, such offences are also bailable, because (1) they relate to recovery of revenue rather than punishment for grave crimes, (2) Sections 20 and 104(3) mandatorily empower officers to release arrested persons on bail, (3) the legislative scheme indicates intent that such offences should be bailable, and (4) the deeming language in Sections 9A and 104(4) making offences non-cognizable does not negate bailability. Non-cognizable and bailable are separate characteristics, and a statute can make offences both non-cognizable (restricting arrest authority) and bailable (entitling accused to bail).
On this section: Referenced in context that excise officers are not police officers, so Section 25 would not apply to their submissions.
-
Vinod Solanki vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In quasi-criminal proceedings under FERA, a confession retracted before a Magistrate on the first available opportunity cannot form the sole basis for imposing penalty. The authority seeking to act on such a retracted confession must first apply its mind to the retraction, consider the circumstances in which it was made, reject it in writing with cogent reasons, and ensure that the inculpatory statement is substantially corroborated by independent and cogent evidence. The burden of proving that the confession was obtained voluntarily and free from threat, coercion, or inducement lies on the Department, not on the proceedee, and Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act applies to FERA proceedings as they are quasi-criminal in nature. A mere retraction, without more, may not render a confession inadmissible, but the court and authorities are obligated to examine both the confession and retraction together and cannot ignore or conveniently bypass the retraction in the guise of applying burden on the accused.
On this section: Cited as barring proof of confessions made to police officers; distinguished from FERA proceedings where statements made before enforcement officers not police, but principles of Section 24 still apply
-
Mohmed Amin @ Amin C. R. M. Shaikh vs C. B. I Tr. Its Director
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When confessions are recorded by police officers of Superintendent of Police rank or above in accordance with Section 15 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and Rule 15 of the TADA Rules, 1987, such confessions are substantive evidence admissible against the maker as well as co-accused, abettors, or conspirators charged and tried in the same case. Even if an accused is acquitted of charges under the TADA Act, such confessions can be used for convicting him for offences under the Indian Penal Code or other enactments, provided the accused was tried jointly with TADA offences. The voluntary nature of confessions depends on the Court being satisfied that the requirements of Section 15 and Rule 15 were complied with, and when challenged by the accused, the initial burden is on the prosecution to prove such compliance. Once the prosecution discharges this burden, the burden shifts to the accused to prove through evidence that the confession was not made voluntarily or was not truthful. Confessions do not require independent corroboration for conviction of the maker, though as a matter of prudence, courts may seek general corroboration for use against co-accused unless satisfied of the confession's probative value. Mere retraction of confession is not sufficient to reject it; the crucial question is whether the accused was subjected to coercion, threat, or undue influence at the time of confession-making. Guidelines laid down in earlier judgments like Kartar Singh, while advisable, are not mandatory legal requirements unless incorporated into the statutory Act or Rules.
On this section: Excluded by non-obstante clause in Section 15 of TADA Act; TADA confessions to police allowed despite Section 25 bar
-
State of U. P vs Sunil
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other hypothesis. Where the prosecution fails to establish an independent, credible connection between the accused and the incident alleged, the entire edifice of circumstantial evidence collapses, regardless of individual pieces of physical evidence. Adverse inference from refusal to provide fingerprints or similar evidence cannot serve as the sole or primary basis for conviction. The burden of proof throughout remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Admissibility of confessions - Confessions made to police are generally inadmissible. The Court considered the admissibility of Suresh Pal Singh's confessional statement in relation to this section.
-
Madhu vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When Circumstantial Evidence Is The Sole Basis For Conviction In A Criminal Case, The Prosecution Must Establish A Complete Unbroken Chain Of Events Leading To The Only Inescapable Conclusion That The Accused Committed The Crime. If The Main Evidence Relied Upon (Confessional Statements) Is Inadmissible Because It Did Not Lead To Discovery Of Unknown Facts (As The Public Already Knew The Location Before The Confessions), And The Supporting Circumstantial Evidence (Eyewitness Testimony, Motive Inconsistencies, Medical Findings) Is Contradictory, Weak, Or Unreliable, The Conviction Cannot Stand. In Such Cases, The Accused Must Be Acquitted As The Prosecution Failed To Meet The Burden Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
On this section: Confessions Made By Accused To Police Officers Cannot Be Proved Against The Accused - Applied To Render Confessions Of Madhu And Sibi Inadmissible
-
Prem Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A complete and unequivocal chain of circumstantial evidence, even without eyewitness testimony, is sufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of an accused person in a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must be such that they lead to no other reasonable inference except the guilt of the accused, and minor contradictions in witness testimony on peripheral matters do not vitiate the credibility of witnesses on core facts if they are consistent on the essential aspects of the case. Recovery of the murder weapon and stolen property at the instance of the accused following a disclosure statement, coupled with medical and forensic evidence and last-seen evidence, forms a clinching chain of circumstantial evidence.
On this section: Confession not admissible against maker - The Court noted that the confessional part of the disclosure statement could not be used as evidence due to this section.
-
Rakesh Kumar Gudda vs Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
At the stage of framing charges under Section 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is only required to consider whether the material on record, taken on its face value, discloses the existence of all ingredients constituting the alleged offences. Even strong suspicion against the accused for commission of alleged offence is good enough to frame a charge. The court need not assess whether the evidence is sufficient for conviction. A confessional statement made by co-accused to police officer, though inadmissible against the person making it under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, does not vitiate the charge if other oral and circumstantial evidence, including motive, association, and recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure statement under Section 27, prima facie establishes involvement of the accused. Bail on medical grounds should be granted where the accused is suffering from serious medical conditions resistant to treatment and the trial has progressed sufficiently to reduce risk of witness tampering.
On this section: Confessions made to police officers are inadmissible in evidence against the person making them to prevent torture and false confessions
-
Haryana Police vs Pankaj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Failure to join independent witnesses during a recovery from a busy public place, coupled with the non-production of the case property in court, creates a reasonable doubt that entitles the accused to acquittal.
On this section: Confession to a police officer not to be proved.
-
Oinam Lukhoi Singh vs The State of Manipur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For an accused to be prosecuted under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for harboring a terrorist, there must be: (1) Knowledge that the person is a terrorist; (2) Intention to help the person evade apprehension; and (3) Actual harboring, concealment, or attempt to harbor or conceal. Merely giving a lift to an unknown person without knowledge of their terrorist connections and without any attempt to help them evade apprehension does not constitute the offense. Similarly, for Section 39 of UAPA to apply, the support must be within the meaning of clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 39(1) and must be done with the intention to further the activities of a terrorist organization. Confessional statements made to police without the presence of a Magistrate are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot form the basis of prosecution. The confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused unless the other evidence adduced by the prosecution is satisfactory and the co-accused's confession is used only as corroborative evidence. When no prima facie case is made out and the proceedings have been pending for an unreasonable period without progress, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.
On this section: Provides that no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence. The court held that confessions of both the petitioner and co-accused had no probative value as they were not recorded in presence of Magistrate.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 25
What have the courts held on Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act?
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (24 Apr 2019) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.25: no confession made to a police officer shall be proved against an accused. A s.161 statement that is a confession is independently inadmissible; even an admission in that statement is then caught by CrPC 162 (Dipakbhai). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IEA 25, section 25 IEA, section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat (24 Apr 2019).
What should I read with Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BSA 23 (Confession to police officer), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act come into force?
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, commonly called confession to police, and cited as IEA 25, came into force on 01 Sep 1872, having been enacted on 15 Mar 1872. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant1207 words
- 14. Facts showing existence of state of mind, or of body of bodily feeling1080 words
- 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement809 words
- 8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct773 words
- 65B. Admissibility of electronic records743 words
- 3. Interpretation-clause667 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item e51341fa-7528-4327-9a57-5d194e16db6f). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.