Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Section 120
Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of
(1) Whoever voluntarily causes hurt for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or from any person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Illustrations.
(a) A, a police officer, tortures Z in order to induce Z to confess that he committed a crime. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(b) A, a police officer, tortures B to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is deposited. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(c) A, a revenue officer, tortures Z in order to compel him to pay certain arrears of revenue due from Z. A is guilty of an offence under this section.
(2) Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt for any purpose referred to in sub-section (1), shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Why this exists
This provision descends from Section 330 and 331 of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, which were enacted during colonial rule partly in response to widespread concerns about police and revenue officials using torture to extract confessions or recover money. It reflects a basic principle of criminal justice: that no one — especially those in power like police or tax officials — may use violence to force cooperation, confession, or repayment. It reinforces protections against custodial torture and coerced self-incrimination.
How courts read it
Indian courts have historically read the predecessor provisions (IPC Sections 330 and 331) strictly against police and public officials who use violence during interrogation or investigation. Custodial torture cases, including landmark rulings like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), though decided under different provisions, reflect the same judicial concern this section addresses — that confessions or information extracted through violence are both illegal and unreliable. Courts have generally emphasized that motive (extracting confession, information, or property) is essential to establish the offence, distinguishing it from ordinary hurt offences.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: Police can use force during questioning if they believe the suspect is guilty.
Fact: The law makes no exception for police or officials — deliberately causing hurt to extract a confession or information is a punishable offence regardless of the suspect's actual guilt. - Myth: This section only applies to police officers.
Fact: It applies to anyone — police, revenue officers, or private individuals — who causes hurt for these prohibited purposes, as shown by the illustration involving a revenue officer.