Section 29 IEA: Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 29 IEA at a Glance

Section 29 IEA deals with confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc. From 1 July 2024 it is replaced by Section 22 BSA.

Now BSA

Section 22 →

Section 29 IEA Bare Act Text

29. Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc

If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practiced on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him.

Source: Section 29, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 29 IEA in Simple Words

Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stops a relevant confession from being rejected for certain reasons. If a confession by an accused person is otherwise relevant under the Act, it stays relevant.

Under Section 29 IEA, a confession does not become irrelevant just because someone promised to keep it secret. The statement also remains relevant if someone used trickery on the accused person in order to get the confession. Even if the accused person was drunk while confessing, the statement does not become irrelevant for that reason.

Section 29 IEA also covers confessions replying to questions that the accused person had no duty to answer. The way those questions were asked does not make the confession irrelevant. A confession also stays relevant even if nobody told the accused person that confessing was not compulsory. Failure to warn that the confession might be used against the accused person does not make it irrelevant.

When Section 29 IEA Applies

  • An accused person has made a confession that is relevant under the other provisions of the Act.
  • The confession was given after someone promised secrecy or used trickery on the accused person to get the statement.
  • The accused person was in a drunken state when making the confession.
  • The confession was made in reply to questions that the accused person had no obligation to answer, regardless of how they were framed.
  • The accused person was not told that confessing was optional and that the confession could be used as evidence against the accused person.

Example of Section 29 IEA

In 2022, Ramesh faces a theft charge in Jaipur and makes an otherwise relevant confession to Farhan. Before Ramesh speaks, Farhan promises to keep the confession secret. During the trial in Jaipur, the defence objects that the secret promise makes the confession by Ramesh unusable. Under Section 29 IEA, the confession made by Ramesh remains relevant despite the promise of secrecy.

When Section 29 IEA Does Not Apply

  • Section 29 IEA does not make a confession relevant if the confession is not otherwise relevant under the Act.

Section 29 IEA in the BSA

Section 29 IEA is now covered under Section 22 BSA.

Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 became the second proviso to Section 22 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 on 1 July 2024. The rule is the same. It is now a proviso instead of a section of its own, and "practiced" reads "practised".

View detailed comparison (IEA 29 vs BSA 22) →

FAQs on Section 29 IEA

What is Section 29 IEA?▼

Section 29 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 states that an otherwise relevant confession by an accused person stays relevant despite certain circumstances. Those circumstances include a promise of secrecy, trickery, drunkenness, questions the accused person need not have answered, or the absence of a warning.

Does a confession become irrelevant under Section 29 IEA because the accused person was drunk?▼

No. Under Section 29 IEA, an otherwise relevant confession stays relevant even if the accused person was drunk when making it.

Is a confession excluded under Section 29 IEA if obtained through trickery or a promise of secrecy?▼

No. Section 29 IEA keeps an otherwise relevant confession relevant even when made under a promise of secrecy. It also stays relevant if obtained by practicing a deception on the accused person.

Must an accused person be warned before confessing for the confession to remain relevant under Section 29 IEA?▼

No. Section 29 IEA keeps an otherwise relevant confession relevant even without a warning that the accused person had no duty to confess. Lack of a warning that the statement might be used against the accused person does not make it irrelevant either.

What is Section 29 IEA in BSA?▼

Section 22 BSA. From 1 July 2024, Section 29 IEA became the second proviso to Section 22 BSA. The rule remains the same, and the word practiced is spelled practised.

Have questions about Section 29 IEA?

Ask NyayGuru for a plain language explanation, or how it applies to your situation.

Ask NyayGuru →

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified advocate for legal advice.

Sources: Bare Act Text, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ·