Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 1081 docs - [View All]
Vijay Kumar And Anr. vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 25 April, 1978
Emperor vs Cunna on 21 March, 1920
Mst. Viran Wali vs State on 20 October, 1960
Percy Rustam Basta vs State Of Maharashtra on 16 March, 1971
K.I. Pavunny vs Assistant Collector (Head ... on 3 February, 1997

[Complete Act]
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it.
Central Government Act
Section 24 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
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,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.—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."