Section 183 BNSS — Recording of Statements and Confessions Before a Magistrate

This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.

Introduction

Recording statements and confessions before a Magistrate is one of the most significant procedural safeguards in the Indian criminal justice system. Under the new criminal law regime, Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 governs this process, replacing Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The provision ensures that confessions and statements made during investigation are recorded under judicial supervision, with built-in protections against coercion and fabrication.

This article examines the statutory framework of Section 183 BNSS, its procedure and safeguards, the key changes from Section 164 CrPC, and the evidentiary value of statements recorded under this provision.

Statutory Framework of Section 183 BNSS

Section 183 BNSS is titled “Recording of confessions and statements.” It falls under Chapter XIII of the BNSS, which deals with the powers of Magistrates in the context of criminal investigations. The provision addresses two distinct categories of recorded material: confessions (admissions of guilt by the accused) and non-confession statements (statements by witnesses and victims).

Sub-section (1): Authority to Record

Any Magistrate of the district in which the information about commission of any offence has been registered may record any confession or statement made during the course of an investigation. This recording may also be done through audio-video electronic means, provided it is in the presence of the advocate of the accused. Critically, no police officer — even one on whom Magisterial powers have been conferred — is permitted to record a confession.

Sub-section (2): Safeguard of Voluntariness

Before recording any confession, the Magistrate must explain to the person making it that:

He is not bound to make a confession;
If he does so, it may be used as evidence against him.

The Magistrate must then question the person and satisfy himself that the confession is being made voluntarily — not under any inducement, threat, or promise.

Sub-section (3): Right to Withdraw

If, at any point before the confession is actually recorded, the person states that he is unwilling to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.

Sub-section (4): Procedure for Recording Confessions

The confession must be recorded in the manner prescribed for examining an accused person. The person making the confession must sign it. The Magistrate appends a memorandum at the foot of the record, stating that the person was duly informed of his rights and that the confession was made voluntarily in the Magistrate’s presence.

Sub-section (5): Non-Confession Statements

Statements other than confessions may be recorded by the Magistrate in such manner as he thinks fit. The Magistrate has the power to administer an oath to the person making the statement.

Sub-section (6): Special Provisions for Sexual Offences and Vulnerable Persons

For offences under Sections 64 to 79 and Section 124 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — which cover sexual offences — the Magistrate must record the victim’s statement as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police. This statement shall preferably be recorded by a woman Magistrate, and in her absence, by a male Magistrate in the presence of a woman.

Where the victim is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the statement must be recorded with the assistance of an interpreter or special educator, and preferably through audio-video electronic means.

Importantly, such a statement is treated as the examination-in-chief of the victim under Section 142 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. This means the victim’s statement need not be repeated at trial — the defence may directly proceed with cross-examination.

Sub-section (7): Forwarding of Records

The Magistrate who records a confession or statement under Section 183 must forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.

Section 164 CrPC — The Predecessor Provision

Section 164 of the CrPC, 1973, served the same fundamental purpose for over five decades. Its core framework — judicial supervision, the voluntariness requirement, the prohibition on police officers recording confessions, the memorandum requirement — forms the foundation on which Section 183 BNSS has been built. Sub-sections (1) through (5) of both provisions are substantially similar.

However, Section 164 CrPC conferred the power to record confessions on “any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case.” The provision did not contain specific mandates for audio-video recording, nor did it include the detailed victim-centric safeguards for sexual offences that appear in Section 183 BNSS.

Key Differences Between Section 164 CrPC and Section 183 BNSS

1. Jurisdictional Scope

Section 164 CrPC allowed any Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate to record confessions, regardless of jurisdiction. Section 183 BNSS restricts this authority to any Magistrate of the district in which the FIR has been registered. This is a narrowing of jurisdiction that could create practical difficulties in multi-district investigations, though it arguably ensures greater accountability.

2. Audio-Video Electronic Recording

While Section 164 CrPC did not expressly provide for electronic recording, Section 183 BNSS specifically authorises audio-video electronic recording of confessions and statements. For disabled victims, audio-video recording (preferably by mobile phone) is mandatory. This codifies what judicial pronouncements had been encouraging for years.

3. Victim-Centric Safeguards in Sexual Offences

Section 183 BNSS introduces detailed provisions requiring prompt recording of victim statements in sexual offence cases by a woman Magistrate, the use of interpreters and special educators for disabled persons, and the treatment of the recorded statement as examination-in-chief. These safeguards were not present in Section 164 CrPC in such codified form.

4. Statutory Codification of Judicial Guidelines

Several safeguards that existed only through Supreme Court and High Court judgments under Section 164 CrPC have now been codified into the statutory text of Section 183 BNSS. The legislature has reduced dependence on judicial interpretation for core procedural protections.

Evidentiary Value of Statements Under Section 183 BNSS

The evidentiary value of statements recorded under Section 183 BNSS (and previously under Section 164 CrPC) depends on whether the statement is a confession or a non-confession statement.

Confessions

A confession recorded under Section 183, if it satisfies the test of voluntariness, is substantive evidence. It can be used against the accused who made it. However, a retracted confession requires careful scrutiny, and courts generally seek independent corroboration before relying on it for conviction.

Non-Confession Statements (Witness Statements)

A non-confession statement recorded under Section 183 is not substantive evidence. It can only be used for:

Corroboration — to support the witness’s testimony at trial (under Section 155 of the BSA, 2023, corresponding to Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872);
Contradiction — to impeach the witness’s credibility if the witness departs from the recorded statement at trial (under Section 148 of the BSA, 2023, corresponding to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872).

The exception is the victim’s statement in sexual offence cases under Sub-section (6), which is treated as examination-in-chief and thus carries the weight of substantive testimony at trial.

Practical Significance

A statement recorded before a Magistrate carries greater weight than a statement recorded by police under Section 180 BNSS (corresponding to Section 161 CrPC), because the Magistrate’s involvement provides a judicial imprimatur. A witness who later disowns a statement made on oath before a Magistrate may face proceedings for giving false evidence.

Audio-Video Recording — A Significant Reform

The express provision for audio-video recording under Section 183 BNSS reflects an important shift toward technology-driven transparency. In Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018), the Supreme Court had emphasised the value of videography in criminal investigations, including for recording confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC and dying declarations. The Court noted that video recording can help inspire confidence in the evidence collected and recommended that investigating agencies adopt videography as standard practice.

Section 183 BNSS codifies this judicial thinking. For disabled persons, the statute makes audio-video recording (preferably by mobile phone) the default mode. For confessions generally, audio-video recording is expressly permitted, though not yet mandatory in all cases.

Relevant Case Law

State of UP v. Singhara Singh (1964)

In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court held that a confession recorded by a Magistrate who was not properly empowered under Section 164 CrPC was inadmissible. The Court ruled that Section 164, by conferring the power to record confessions on Magistrates, by necessary implication prohibited a Magistrate from giving oral evidence of confessions made to him outside the statutory procedure. This case underscores the importance of strict procedural compliance — a principle equally applicable to Section 183 BNSS.

Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018)

The Supreme Court directed the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPR&D) to prepare guidance manuals for investigating officers on videography of crime scenes and recording of statements. The Court recognised that video recording of confessional statements, dying declarations, and identification proceedings enhances the reliability of the criminal justice process. This decision is considered a precursor to the statutory audio-video provisions now found in Section 183 BNSS.

Common Grounds for Challenge

Statements and confessions recorded under Section 183 BNSS are frequently challenged on the following grounds:

Involuntariness — failure by the Magistrate to adequately question the accused about voluntariness, or evidence of police pressure, inducement, or threat prior to the confession.
Non-compliance with procedure — failure to administer the required warning, failure to record the memorandum, or recording by an unauthorised person.
Insufficient cooling-off period — where the accused was produced before the Magistrate immediately after police custody without adequate time to reflect, courts may doubt voluntariness.
Absence of advocate — particularly where audio-video recording is used, the absence of the accused’s advocate can vitiate the recording.
Retraction — while retraction alone does not render a confession inadmissible, it triggers heightened judicial scrutiny and the need for corroboration.

Conclusion

Section 183 BNSS retains the core architecture of Section 164 CrPC while introducing meaningful reforms — particularly the express provision for audio-video recording, victim-centric safeguards in sexual offence cases, and the treatment of certain victim statements as examination-in-chief. These changes reflect the legislature’s effort to modernise criminal procedure and reduce reliance on purely judge-made safeguards.

For accused persons, the provision reinforces the right against self-incrimination by mandating that confessions must be voluntary and judicially supervised. For victims, particularly in sexual offence cases, the provision aims to reduce the trauma of repeated testimony. For practitioners, familiarity with the procedural requirements of Section 183 BNSS is essential, as non-compliance remains a potent ground for challenging the admissibility of recorded statements.

Disclaimer: This article is intended solely for educational and legal awareness purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation of any kind. The information provided here is based on publicly available legal texts and judicial decisions as of the date of publication. Laws and their interpretation may change over time. Readers are advised to consult a qualified advocate for guidance on specific legal matters. No advocate-client relationship is created by reading this article.