Section 24 Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence

Section 24 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence

Official Bare Act Text

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

When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. Explanation I.—"Offence", as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence. Explanation II.—A trial of more persons than one held in the absence of the accused who has absconded or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section.

Illustrations

(a) A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said—"B and I murdered C". The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.

(b) A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said—"A and I murdered C". This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being jointly tried.

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

Fact Sec 2(1)(d) Proved Sec 2(1)(f) Confession Sec 21

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 24

Section 24 governs the evidentiary use of a co-accused's confession in joint trials, defining the narrow conditions under which such statements may be considered against other co-defendants.

Evidentiary Proof & Admissibility: Section 24 (formerly Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act) creates an exceptional rule permitting the court to 'take into consideration' the proved confession of an accused against co-defendants.
Operational Evidentiary Proof & Admissibility: A co-accused confession does not constitute 'evidence' in the strict sense under Section 2(1)(e) of the BSA, because it is not delivered under oath and cannot be subjected to cross-examination by the co-accused.

It is evidence of the weakest character, incapable of sustaining a conviction on its own.

Explanation II enacts a major statutory reform under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam: a trial of multiple persons held in the absence of an accused who has absconded or failed to comply with a proclamation under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is deemed to be a joint trial. This progressive reform prevents absconding conspirators from sabotaging the evidentiary consideration of a co-accused's confession.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P. (AIR 1952 SC 159): The Supreme Court established the classic benchmark: a co-accused confession cannot lead the prosecution evidence or form the foundation of a conviction; the court must first evaluate all other independent substantive evidence, and may only turn to the co-accused confession to lend reassurance to an already established case.
Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 1184): A Constitution Bench reaffirmed that a confession under Section 30 IEA / Section 24 BSA is not substantive evidence against a co-accused and can never tilt the balance where other prosecution evidence is deficient.
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, DRI (2018) 8 SCC 271: Held that an uncorroborated confession of a co-accused cannot form the basis of conviction, especially in severe penal statutes like the NDPS Act.

Legal Commentary:

Defence practitioners representing co-defendants must emphasize that a co-accused confession cannot be used as the starting point of judicial evaluation. If the prosecution fails to present independent, credible substantive evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court is prohibited from using a co-accused's confession to fill evidentiary gaps.