§ SECTION 24 · BSA 2023 · CHAPTER II — RELEVANCY OF FACTS

Consideration of a proved confession affecting the maker and others jointly tried for the same offence

When several accused are tried together for one offence and one of them makes a proved confession blaming himself and a co-accused, the Court may weigh it against that co-accused too — but only as a weak makeweight.

How to read Section 24

One rule, two Explanations, two mirror illustrations.

The three conditions

Joint trial for the same offence · a proved confession · one that blames the maker and a co-accused.

The effect — ‘may’

The Court may then weigh it against the co-accused as well — discretion, and only a supporting makeweight.

Two Explanations

I: “offence” covers abetment and attempt. II: a trial without an absconder still counts as joint.

The bare Act

The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.

Section 24 · verbatim

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.

In short: when several people are tried together for the same offence and one makes a proved confession that blames himself as well as the others, the Court may use it against the others too — but only as a weak makeweight, never as the sole proof.

→ Two guardrails: the confession must cut both ways (self + co-accused), and the trial must be joint — Explanation II stops an absconder escaping the rule by staying away.

Glossary

tried jointly

Two or more accused tried in the same trial for the same offence — the gateway condition.

affecting himself and some other

The confession must implicate the maker as well as a co-accused — it must cut both ways.

may take into consideration

Discretion, not command — and only as corroborative support, never the sole basis to convict.

abetment · attempt

By Explanation I, the “same offence” stretches to abetting or attempting it.

absconded · § 84 proclamation

An accused who flees or ignores a BNSS § 84 proclamation — his absence does not undo the joint trial.

deemed joint trial

A legal as-if — the trial is treated as joint for this section even though the absconder is missing.

The picture

The rule lives on one line — joint trial, or not.

The section, part by part

Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.

The ruleThe two ExplanationsThe Illustrations

the ruleWhen a co-accused’s confession may be weighed against you

In one lineIn a joint trial for the same offence, a proved confession by one accused that blames himself and a co-accused may be weighed against that co-accused too.

When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence,condition 1 · joint trialtwo or more accused, tried together for the same offence.

and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons⚠ condition 2 · cuts both waysone of them confesses — implicating himself AND a co-accused (not the co-accused alone).

is proved,condition 3 · provedand that confession is duly proved in the trial.

the Court may take into consideration such confessionmay · not mustthen the Court may — its discretion — take the confession into account…

as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession.against both…against the co-accused as well as against the maker.

ExampleA and B are jointly tried for one robbery. A’s proved confession says “B and I did it”. Because it implicates A himself too, the Court may weigh it against B — but only as a supporting makeweight, never enough on its own to convict B.

✗ Not thisEvery condition must hold. If A’s confession blames only B (“B did it, not me”), it does not cut both ways — § 24 shuts. If A and B are tried for different offences, there is no joint trial — it shuts. And even when it applies, “may take into consideration” is a weak makeweight, never the sole basis for conviction.

the two explanationsWhat ‘offence’ means — and the absconder rule

In one lineExplanation I: “offence” also covers abetment and attempt. Explanation II: a trial run in an absconder’s absence still counts as a joint trial.

“Offence”, as used in this section,Explanation I · reads ‘offence’the word offence in this section…

includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.stretches to…also covers abetting it, or attempting it — so a co-accused charged with abetment or attempt of the same offence still counts.

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, 2023Explanation II · the absconderif one accused has absconded or ignored a BNSS § 84 proclamation, and the rest are tried without him…

shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purpose of this section.deemed joint…it still counts as a joint trial here — the absconder cannot dodge § 24 by staying away.

ExampleA absconds and ignores a § 84 proclamation; B and C are tried for the same dacoity. B’s proved confession implicates A too. Explanation II deems this a joint trial, so the confession may be weighed against absconding A — he gains nothing by fleeing.

✗ Not thisExplanation I does not import unrelated offences — only abetment or attempt of this same offence. And Explanation II’s deeming needs the § 84 machinery (absconding or proclamation-default); a co-accused merely tried in a separate trial for convenience is not swept in.

the two illustrationsJoint trial vs separate trial

In one lineSame trial, both named → the confession may be used against the co-accused. Separate trials → it cannot.

(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.when it worksjoint trial + A implicates himself and B → may be weighed against B.

ExampleA and B stand trial together for one arson; A’s proved confession says “B and I set the fire”. Because A implicates himself too, the judge may weigh it against B — alongside the other evidence.

✗ Not thisFlip one fact and it collapses: were B tried in a separate trial, A’s confession could not be used against B at all — and vice versa. Joint trial is the hinge.

Connected provisions

§ 22

IEA 1872, § 30

This section carries forward section 30 — now with an express Explanation deeming an absconder’s trial joint.

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 — Section 24: Proved confession affecting a co-accused jointly tried