Section 24 of the Evidence Act says
Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.—A 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 promise,1 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. tc "24. Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.—A 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 promise,2 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." [1]
Introduction:
The word “confession” appears for the first time in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. This section comes under the heading of Admission so it is clear that the confessions are merely one species of admission. Confession is not defined in the Act. Mr. Justice Stephen in his Digest of the law of Evidence defines confession as “confession is an admission made at any time by a person charged with a crime stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that crime.”

In Pakala Narayan Swami v Emperor[2] Lord Atkin observed “A confession must either admit in terms the offence or at any rate substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even a conclusively incriminating fact is not in itself a confession”.

In the case of Palvinder Kaur v State of Punjab[3] the Supreme Court approved the Privy Council decision in Pakala Narayan Swami case over two scores.Firstly, that the definition if confession is that it must either admit the guilt in terms or admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence. Secondly, that a mixed up statement which even though contains some confessional statement will still lead to acquittal, is no confession. Thus, a statement that contains self-exculpatory matter which if true would negate the matter or offence, cannot amount to confession.

However in the case Nishi Kant Jha v State of Bihar[4] the Supreme Court pointed out that there was nothing wrong or relying on a part of the confessional statement and rejecting the rest, and for this purpose, the Court drew support from English authorities. When there is enough evidence to reject the exculpatory part of the accused person’s statements, the Court may rely on the inculpatory part.

Ingredients of Section 24
To attract the prohibition enacted in Section 24 the following facts must be established:
•That the statement in question is a confession,
•That such confession has been made by the accused,
•That it has been made to a person in authority,
• That the confession has been obtained by reason of any inducement, threat or promise, proceeding from a person in authority,
• Such inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused, and
• The inducement, threat or promise must in the opinion of the court be sufficient to give the accused ground, which would appear to him reasonable, for supporting that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.

1. Confession made by inducement, threat or promise- a confession should be free and voluntary. “If it proceeds from remorse and a desire to make reparation for the crime, it is admissible. If it flows from hope or fear, excited by a person in authority, it is inadmissible.” The term inducement involves a threat of prosecution if the guilt is not confessed and a promise of forgiveness if it is so done. It is very difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to what constitutes inducement. It is for the judge to decide in every case. An inducement may be express or implied, it need not be made to the accused directly from the person in authority. Before a confession can be received as such, it must be shown that it was freely and voluntarily made. This means that the confession must not be obtained by any sort of threat or violence, not by any promise either direct or indirect, expressed or implied, however slight the hope or fear produced thereby, not by the exertion of an influence. The ground on which confessions made by the accused under promises of favour or threats of injury are excluded from evidence is not because any wrong is done to the accused in suing than but because he may be induced by pressure of hope or fear to confess the guilt without regard to their truth in order to obtain relief or avoid the threatened danger. Thus it is clear that if threat or promise from persons in authority is used in getting a confession it will not be taken into evidence. Every threat or inducement may not be sufficient to induce the accused to confess a guilt. The proper question before excluding a confession is whether the inducement held out to the prisoner was calculated to make his confession untrue one. The real enquiry is whether there had been any threat of such a nature that from fear of it the prisoner was likely to have told an untruth. If so, the confession should not be admitted.[5]

In case of an ordinary confession there is no initial burden on the prosecution to prove that the confession sought to be proved is not obtained by inducement, threat, etc. It is the right of the accused to have the confession excluded and equally the duty of the court to exclude it even suo moto.[6] It is idle to expect that an accused should produce definite proof about beating or pressure. But he must point out some evidence or circumstances on which a well-sounded conjecture at least, that there was beating or pressure may reasonably be based.[7]

2. Inducement must have reference to the charge- the inducement must have reference to the charge against the accused person that is the charge of offence in the criminal courts and inferencing the mind of the accused with respect to the escape from the charge. The inducement must have reference to escape from the charge. Thus, it is necessary for the confession to be excluded from evidence that the accused should labour under influence that in reference to the charge in question his position would be better or worse according as he confesses or not. Inducements in reference to other offences or matters or offences committed by others will not affect the validity of the confession thus, where a person charged with murder, was made to confess to a Panchayat which threatened his removal from the caste for life, the confession was held to be relevant, for the threat had nothing to do with the charge.[8]

The inducement need not be necessarily expressed. It may be implied from the conduct of the person in authority, from the declaration of the prisoner or the circumstances of the case. Similarly it need not be made to the prisoner directly; it is sufficient to have come to his knowledge provided it appears to have induced to confession.

3. Threat, inducement and promise from a person in authority- the threat, inducement and promise on account of which the accused admits the guilt must come from a person who has got some authority over the matter. To be clear the person giving different promises, threatening the accused or inducing him to make the confession must be a person in authority[9] as stated in the Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan . If a friend of the accused induces him to make a confession or a relation if he makes him a promise that if he confesses he will get him released or even if he threatens him and the accused on that account admits his guilt this statement will not be excluded by Section 24 as the threat, inducement or promise do not emanate from a person in authority.If the accused makes the confession thinking that by doing so the authorities would soften the attitude towards him the confession cannot be said to be non-voluntary.[10]

The term person in authority within the meaning of Section 24 was held to be one who has authority to interfere in the matter charge against the accused. If this definition is to be accepted that term “ a person in authority” would mean only the police who are in charge of the investigation and the magistrate who is to try the case. This view appears to be too restrictive. It appears that a person in authority within the meaning of Section 24 should be one who by virtue of his position wields some kind of influence over the accused.[11]

The question as to whether a person to whom a confession has been made is a person in authority would naturally depend on the circumstances of each case having regard to the status of the accused in relation to the person before whom the confession is made. [12]A house surgeon is a person in authority in relation to nurse of the same hospital.

4. Sufficiency of the inducement, threat or promise- before a confession is excluded, inducement, threat or promise would in the opinion of the court be sufficient to give the accused person ground which would appear to the accused reasonable for supposing that by making the confession he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of the nature contemplated in the section. Consequently the mentality of the accused has to be judged and not the person in authority. That being the case, not only the actual words, but words followed by acts or conduct on the part of the person in authority, which may be taken by the accused person as amounting to an inducement, threat or promise[13], will have to be taken into account. A perfectly innocent expression, coupled with acts or conduct on the part of the person in authority together with the surrounding circumstances may amount to inducement, threat or promise. It does not turn upon as to what may have been the precise words used but in each case whatever the words used may be it is for the judge to consider whether the words used were such as to convey to the mind of the person addressed an intimation that it will be better for him to confess that he committed the crime or worse for him if he does not. The expression, whatever you say will be used as evidence against you will not exclude a confession. On the other hand you better pay the money than go to jail, if you tell me where my goods are I will be favourable to you, I will get you released if you tell me the truth, have been held to be sufficient to give the accused grounds for supposing that by making the confession he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil.
It must be borne in the mind that the advantage gained or the evil avoided must be of temporal nature therefore any inducement having reference to a future state of reward or punishment does not affect the admissibility of confession. A confession will not be excluded which has been obtained by the accused by moral or religious exhortation. The expression you had better as good boys tell the truth, kneel down and tell me truth in the presence of the Almighty, do not give out any temporal gain and so the confession derived on these confessions are not excluded by Section 24. Confession obtained on the allegation by the panches that if the accused does not confess he shall be excommunicated will not exclude the confession. It should be borne in the mind that the gain or evil must be in reference to the proceeding against him.
-----------------------
[1] Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section- 24 (Confession caused by inducement, threat or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding)
[2] Pakala Narayan Swami v Emperor, Privy Council
[3] Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab 1952 AIR 354, 1952 SCR 94
[4] Nishi Kant Jha vs State Of Bihar Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 422, 1969 SCR (1)1033
[5] The Law of Evidence, Batuk Lal Cental Law Agency 2014; Pg.180
[6] Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094.
[7] Bala Majihi v. The State of Orissa, AIR 1951 Orissa 168 (FB)
[8] Chaman Lal v. State of J&K, 1976 Cr LJ 1310
[9] Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094.
[10] R.K Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821
[11] Motilal v. Kailash Narain, AIR 1960 MP 132.
[12] Ram Din v. Emperor, AIR 1945 Cal. 360
[13] Emperor v. Panchkauri, AIR 1925 Cal. 587.