Section 509 BNSS: Non-compliance with provisions of section 183 or section 316 (Formerly Section 463 CrPC)

Section 509 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Non-compliance with provisions of section 183 or section 316

Official Bare Act Text

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

(1) If any Court before which a confession or other statement of an accused person recorded, or purporting to be recorded under section 183 or section 316, is tendered, or has been received, in evidence finds that any of the provisions of either of such sections have not been complied with by the Magistrate recording the statement, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 94 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, take evidence in regard to such non-compliance, and may, if satisfied that such non-compliance has not injured the accused in his defence on the merits and that he duly made the statement recorded, admit such statement.

(2) The provisions of this section apply to Courts of appeal, reference and revision.

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

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

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 509

Section 509 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 463 of the CrPC, 1973) governs non-compliance with the statutory provisions of Section 183 (confessions) or Section 316 (examination of accused), permitting curing of defects by taking evidence.

Non-Compliance with Recording Procedure: If any Court finds that any of the provisions of Section 183 or Section 316 have not been complied with by the Magistrate recording the statement.
Admissibility through Additional Evidence: The Court may take evidence in regard to such non-compliance, and may admit any such statement if it is satisfied that such person duly made the statement recorded.
Accused's Defence Prejudice Bar: No such statement shall be admitted if the non-compliance has injured the accused as to their defence on the merits.

Key Landmark Precedents:

State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358: The Constitution Bench held that Section 463 CrPC cures only formal irregularities in recording; it cannot cure a total failure to warn the accused or failure to record the confession in open court.
Shiv Narayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 465: Reaffirmed that substantive violations of voluntariness cannot be repaired under this section.

Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

If a judicial confession lacks the mandatory statutory certificate of voluntariness under Section 183, object that the omission is a substantive defect injuring defense on merits, precluding repair under Section 509.