Ethics · 7 Aug 2026

wrongful conviction custodial confession

Assertion (A): The Supreme Court acquitted Arjun Jani after he had spent 22 years in prison, despite the confession used to convict him being legally inadmissible from the outset. Reason (R): Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence against the accused.

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the ability to connect a specific evidentiary rule to its real-world consequence in a landmark case, verifying substantive rather than superficial legal understanding.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: 22 Years for a Crime the Evidence Never Proved - What the State Owes Arjun Jani Now
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 7 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Supreme Court acquitted Arjun Jani after 22 years in prison, criticising the trial court for failing to evaluate evidence properly and the Odisha High Court for acting as a "mute spectator."

Why for UPSC

This tests whether candidates can connect a specific evidentiary rule to a real case outcome, verifying genuine understanding of why inadmissible evidence should never have grounded a conviction in the first place.

Prelims summary

Confessions made to police officers are inadmissible under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam; Arjun Jani's 22-year wrongful conviction rested partly on exactly such an inadmissible, coerced confession.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.