Section 28 provides for validity of a confession after removal of impression caused by inducement threat or promise. Under Section 24 when it is in the opinion of the court that a confession of an accused seems to have been caused by inducement, threat, promise or hope of advantage, it is irrelevant and cannot be proved. But if the Court is satisfied that the impression of inducement, threat or promise has been fully removed from the mind of the accused and the accused is totally free from the evil of fear or advantages, the confession will be relevant. “In determining whether an inducement has ceased to operate, the nature of such inducement, the time and circumstances under which it was made, the situation of the person making it, will be taken into consideration by the court.” Confessional statement made freely and voluntarily by accused while released on bail, held, cannot be rejected merely because the Magistrate used the expression “evidence” instead of confession.
Where an accused confessed to the Panchayat before arrest and was kept in custody by the villagers till the arrival, next day, of the police who sent him after formal arrest to the Magistrate. The Magistrate recorded confession on the fourth day and it was held that the improper influence had continued and the confession was inadmissible. The requirements of Section 27 were not fulfilled, because, a confession must have been proved voluntary and true.