Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
Section 24
Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial
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.
Why this exists
This provision continues a long-standing rule from the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 30), carried into the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 with modernized cross-references (like linking absconding accused to BNSS proclamation procedure). It exists because joint trials are common in India, and confessions by one accused often implicate others. Since a confession is not sworn testimony and cannot be cross-examined, the law treats it as weak, supportive evidence rather than proof by itself—allowing courts flexibility while guarding against unfair use against co-accused who never made the statement.
How courts read it
Courts have long held that a co-accused's confession is not 'evidence' in the strict sense under the Evidence Act's definition, and cannot by itself form the sole basis of conviction; it can only be used to lend assurance to other independent evidence already on record. The Supreme Court (e.g., in cases following the logic of Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab) has emphasized that such a confession is the weakest kind of evidence and must be corroborated by other material implicating the co-accused. Courts have also clarified that the confession must be genuinely against the maker's own interest (a real confession) and that the trial must indeed be a joint one for this provision to apply, as illustrated by illustration (b).
Common misconceptions
- Myth: A co-accused's confession alone is enough to convict the other accused.
Fact: Courts have held that such a confession is weak evidence and can only support other independent evidence—it cannot be the sole basis for convicting a co-accused. - Myth: This rule applies even if the other person isn't on trial in the same case.
Fact: As Illustration (b) shows, if the person is not being jointly tried, their confession cannot be used against the other accused in a separate trial.