Section 265 BNSS: Evidence for prosecution (Formerly Section 244 CrPC)

Section 265 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Evidence for prosecution

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(1) If the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under section 264, the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses:

Provided that the Magistrate shall supply in advance to the accused, the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation by the police.

(2) The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

(3) On the date so fixed, the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution:

Provided that the Magistrate may permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination:

Provided further that the examination of a witness under this sub-section may be done by audio-video electronic means at the designated place to be notified by the State Government.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Charge Sec 2(1)(b) Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 265

Section 265 prescribes the procedure for recording evidence for the prosecution in warrant cases instituted on a police report, mandating that the Magistrate shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution (replacing Section 242 CrPC).

Prosecution Evidence Stage: Commences after accused refuses to plead guilty or claims trial.
Fixing Date for Witnesses: Magistrate fixes a date for examination of witnesses and may issue summons to witnesses on application.
Cross-Examination Opportunity: Accused is entitled to cross-examine prosecution witnesses as they are produced.

Key Landmark Precedents:

State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh (2001) 4 SCC 667: The Supreme Court held that once witness examination commences under Section 242 CrPC (Section 265 BNSS), it must continue day-to-day until all witnesses are examined; routine adjournments violate the Code and encourage witness tampering.
Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220: The Supreme Court condemned the practice of deferring cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, directing that cross-examination must be conducted immediately after examination-in-chief.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Under *Vinod Kumar*, defence counsel must be prepared to cross-examine eyewitnesses on the very day of examination-in-chief. Deferring cross-examination to another date requires recording compelling reasons in writing.