Section 22 of BSA : Section 22: Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Ravi is accused of theft and is taken into police custody. During interrogation, the police officer tells Ravi that if he confesses to the crime, he will be released on bail immediately and will not have to spend time in jail. Feeling pressured and wanting to avoid jail time, Ravi confesses to the theft. Later, in court, Ravi's lawyer argues that the confession should be considered irrelevant because it was made under the inducement of being released on bail. The court agrees, finding that the confession was caused by an inducement from a person in authority (the police officer) and is therefore irrelevant in the criminal proceeding.

Example 2:

Sita is accused of fraud and is being questioned by the police. During the interrogation, the police threaten Sita, saying that if she does not confess, they will arrest her family members and charge them with complicity in the fraud. Fearing for her family's safety, Sita confesses to the crime. In court, Sita's lawyer argues that the confession should be disregarded because it was made under the threat of harm to her family. The court finds that the confession was caused by a threat from a person in authority and is thus irrelevant in the criminal proceeding.

Example 3:

Amit is accused of assault and is interrogated by the police. The police promise Amit that if he confesses, they will ensure that he receives a lighter sentence. Believing that he will benefit from a reduced sentence, Amit confesses to the assault. In court, Amit's lawyer contends that the confession should be considered irrelevant because it was made under the promise of a lighter sentence. The court agrees, determining that the confession was caused by a promise from a person in authority and is therefore irrelevant in the criminal proceeding.

Example 4:

Priya is accused of embezzlement and is questioned by the police while she is intoxicated. The police deceive Priya by telling her that they have irrefutable evidence against her and that confessing is her only option. Under the influence of alcohol and believing the deception, Priya confesses to the crime. In court, Priya's lawyer argues that the confession should be considered irrelevant because it was made while she was drunk and under deception. The court, however, finds that the confession is still relevant because it was not caused by inducement, threat, coercion, or promise, and the deception alone does not make it irrelevant.

Example 5:

Raj is accused of burglary and is interrogated by the police. The police do not inform Raj that he is not obligated to answer their questions and that his answers could be used against him in court. Raj, unaware of his rights, confesses to the burglary. In court, Raj's lawyer argues that the confession should be considered irrelevant because Raj was not warned about his rights. The court, however, finds that the confession is still relevant because the lack of warning does not make the confession irrelevant under the law.