Introduction
Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) corresponds to the erstwhile Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It empowers a judicial magistrate to record the statements of witnesses and the confessions of accused persons during the course of investigation. The provision serves as an important judicial safeguard to preserve reliable evidence, protect witnesses from intimidation or influence, and ensure that any confession made by an accused is voluntary, truthful, and free from coercion.
Statements and confessions recorded under Section 183 are made before an independent judicial authority and, therefore, carry greater evidentiary assurance than statements recorded by the police. However, while judicial confessions may constitute substantive evidence against their maker, statements of witnesses recorded under this provision are not substantive evidence and have only a limited evidentiary value.
Purpose of Recording Statements Under Section 183 BNSS
During the investigation of a criminal case, the Investigating Officer (IO) may consider it necessary to request the Magistrate to record the statement of a material witness under Section 183 BNSS. This is particularly important where:
- The witness is closely related to the accused;
- the accused is influential or capable of intimidating witnesses;
- there is a likelihood that the witness may later retract or alter the statement; or
- The nature of the offence requires preservation of the earliest version of the witness.
The primary object is to preserve credible evidence at the earliest stage and to protect the integrity of the investigation. The mere fact that the police have arranged for the recording of such a statement does not render the witness or the evidence suspicious.
Nature and Evidentiary Value of Witness Statements
A statement recorded by a magistrate under Section 183 BNSS is not substantive evidence. It cannot, by itself, prove the facts stated therein or form the basis of conviction.
Its evidentiary value is confined to the following purposes:
- Corroboration of the witness’s testimony during trial.
- Contradiction of the witness if he or she departs from the earlier version.
- Cross-examination in accordance with the provisions of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), relating to previous statements.
Statements recorded soon after the occurrence generally carry greater credibility because they are less likely to be influenced by tutoring, threats, or embellishments. Judicial records also enjoy a statutory presumption of genuineness under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
When Are Statements Recorded?
The Investigating Officer may seek recording of a witness’s statement where there is a reasonable apprehension that the witness may later become hostile or may be won over by the accused.
However, Section 183 is not confined only to police requisitions. A magistrate may also record the statement:
- on the request of the witness himself or herself;
- in exceptional circumstances, at the request of the accused; or
- whenever the magistrate is satisfied that recording the statement is necessary in the interests of justice.
Thus, the provision ensures that valuable evidence is not lost merely because the investigating agency fails or declines to move the magistrate.
Witnesses Turning Hostile
One of the principal purposes of recording statements under Section 183 BNSS is to safeguard against witnesses turning hostile during trial.
If a witness resiles from the earlier judicial statement:
- the defence may use the previous statement for contradiction during cross-examination; and
- The prosecution, with the permission of the court, may use it for corroboration or to confront a hostile witness.
Where a witness deliberately gives false evidence on oath before the court, proceedings for the offence of giving false evidence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) may also be initiated in accordance with law.
Confessions of the Accused Under Section 183 BNSS
Section 183 also empowers a judicial magistrate to record the confession of an accused who voluntarily desires to confess during investigation.
Since a confession may have serious consequences for the accused, the law prescribes strict procedural safeguards to ensure that it is entirely voluntary.
Essential Safeguards
Before recording a confession, the magistrate must satisfy himself or herself that:
- The accused is making the confession voluntarily;
- no threat, inducement, promise, coercion or police influence exists;
- the accused understands that he is not legally bound to confess; and
- The accused understands that the confession may be used as evidence against him.
As a rule of judicial prudence, the magistrate recording the confession should ordinarily not be the magistrate who eventually conducts the trial.
Wherever practicable, the confession should be recorded in open court during court hours.
Reflection Period
Courts have consistently emphasised that an accused should ordinarily be afforded sufficient time for reflection before making a confession.
The accepted judicial practice is:
- to administer the statutory warning;
- to remand the accused to judicial custody; and
- to allow reasonable time—generally around 24 hours—to enable the accused to make an independent decision free from police influence.
This reflection period is regarded as an important safeguard against involuntary confessions.
Tests for Accepting a Judicial Confession
Before acting upon a confession, courts ordinarily examine:
- whether the confession is entirely voluntary;
- whether it is true and trustworthy; and
- whether it inspires confidence and is corroborated on material particulars wherever necessary.
A voluntary and truthful judicial confession, even if subsequently retracted, may form the basis of conviction, including in serious offences such as murder, provided the court is fully satisfied regarding its authenticity.
Circumstances Affecting Voluntariness
A confession is liable to be rejected where circumstances indicate that it was not made voluntarily.
Examples include:
- recording immediately after police custody without adequate time for reflection;
- continued police influence or intimidation;
- police presence capable of seeing or overhearing the confession;
- inducement, threat or promise from a person in authority; or
- failure by the magistrate to administer the mandatory caution.
Similarly, if there is no meaningful interval between police custody and recording of the confession, particularly where the confession is later retracted, courts may refuse to rely upon it.
An undertrial prisoner being escorted from jail to the Magistrate is not deemed to be in police custody merely because police personnel accompany him, unless those officers are directly connected with the investigation or acting under the Investigating Officer’s supervision.
Procedural Irregularities
Minor procedural defects do not necessarily invalidate a confession.
Where the Magistrate has substantially complied with the mandatory safeguards regarding voluntariness and caution, technical defects relating merely to the manner of recording may be curable, provided no prejudice has been caused to the accused.
However, defects affecting the voluntary nature of the confession cannot be cured.
Important Features Under the BNSS
The BNSS strengthens transparency and victim protection by incorporating several modern safeguards, including:
- preference for recording statements of women victims, particularly in sexual offences, before a woman magistrate or by a male magistrate in the presence of a woman where necessary;
- greater use of audio-video electronic recording during investigation and judicial proceedings;
- emphasis on the dignity, privacy and protection of victims and vulnerable witnesses; and
- continued judicial oversight over the recording of statements and confessions to ensure fairness and prevent coercion.
These reforms aim to improve the credibility of criminal investigations while safeguarding the constitutional rights of victims, witnesses and accused persons alike.
Confession Against a Co-Accused
A confession made by one accused under Section 183 BNSS does not ordinarily constitute substantive evidence against a co-accused.
Such a confession can be considered only as an additional circumstance and cannot, by itself, form the basis of conviction unless:
- there is independent evidence connecting the co-accused with the offence; and
- The confession is fully inculpatory and genuinely incriminates its maker as well.
An exculpatory or partially exculpatory confession—where the maker minimises his own role while shifting blame to others—has little or no evidentiary value against the co-accused.
Case Laws
Kirti Verma v. State of U.P.
In Kirti Verma v. State of U.P. (2026 Supreme (All) 409), the Allahabad High Court held that re-recording a victim or witness statement before a Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS (successor to Section 164 CrPC) is an exception, not a routine practice, and is permissible only upon proof of coercion, improper recording, or grave procedural defects that compromise the integrity of the original statement.
The Court underscored that such judicially supervised statements carry significantly higher evidentiary weight than police statements under Section 180 BNSS (formerly Section 161 CrPC). Consistent with Supreme Court precedents such as State of Karnataka v. Shivanna (2014) 8 SCC 913, it reaffirmed that these statements are intended to remain final to preserve evidentiary reliability and prevent abuse of process through witness coaching or retractions.
Conclusion
Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is a vital procedural safeguard that balances the interests of effective criminal investigation with the constitutional rights of individuals. While statements of witnesses recorded before a magistrate are not substantive evidence, they play a significant role in corroborating or contradicting testimony during trial.
Judicial confessions, on the other hand, may constitute substantive evidence against their maker, provided they are recorded voluntarily and in strict compliance with the statutory safeguards. By strengthening judicial supervision, promoting electronic recording, and enhancing protection for vulnerable witnesses and victims, Section 183 BNSS reinforces the principles of fairness, transparency, and reliability in the administration of criminal justice.
