The police arrested B in village and left him in the custody of certain villagers and went to finalise…

The arrest and police restraint continue while the villagers guard the accused on the officers' behalf. Delegating physical supervision does not amount to releasing him from police custody. His confession to the villagers is therefore excluded by section 23(2) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872), since no Magistrate is present.

Why not "Not admissible as it is extra-judicial in nature"? An extra judicial confession is not inadmissible merely because it was made outside a court. A voluntary and otherwise legally admissible confession may be considered. The decisive defect here is the accused's continuing police custody, which invokes a specific statutory exclusion irrespective of the civilian listeners.

Why not "Admissible even though it is extra-judicial in nature because it was made to the villagers who were deputed by the police officer"? The villagers' deputation establishes continuity of police control rather than an exception to the custody rule. Section 23(2) covers confessions to persons other than police officers when the maker remains in police custody. Entrusting supervision to civilians cannot remove that statutory protection from the arrested person.

Why not "Admissible because at the time of making the confession B was not under the custody of the police officer"? Physical absence of the arresting officer does not itself end police custody. The accused remains restrained by the arrest and is being guarded under the police arrangement. Since the villagers act as custodians on that basis, describing him as outside police custody mischaracterises the stated facts.