Section 24 BSA: Consideration of Proved Confession Affecting Person Making It and Others Jointly Under Trial

Section 24 BSA explains when a confession made by one accused person may be considered against another accused person being jointly tried for the same offence.

Introduction

In criminal proceedings, a confession made by an accused person may contain statements implicating both the person making the confession and another accused person. The law must determine whether, and to what extent, such a confession can be considered against the other accused.

Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) deals with the consideration of a proved confession affecting its maker and other persons jointly under trial for the same offence. It permits the court to take such a confession into consideration against another jointly tried accused, subject to the statutory requirements.

However, this provision does not mean that a co-accused can automatically be convicted merely because another accused has confessed and implicated them. The Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between a confession that is substantive evidence against its maker and a confession of a co-accused that may be considered against another accused in the limited manner permitted by law.

Section 24 also contains two explanations. The first includes abetment and attempt within the meaning of an offence for this provision. The second addresses certain trials conducted 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.

Understanding Section 24 is essential for law students and judiciary aspirants studying confessions, joint trials and the evidentiary value of statements made by co-accused persons.

Bare Act: Section 24 BSA

24. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.—

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.

Source: Section 24, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Meaning of Section 24 BSA

Section 24 creates a limited rule allowing a court to consider the confession of one accused person against another accused person who is jointly tried for the same offence.

Ordinarily, a confession is relevant against the person who makes it. Section 24 permits the court to extend its consideration to another accused person when the statutory conditions are satisfied.

For example, A and B are jointly tried for robbery. A makes a confession stating that A and B jointly committed the robbery. If the confession is proved and the requirements of Section 24 are satisfied, the court may consider it against B as well as A.

However, the expression “may take into consideration” is important. It gives the court permission to consider the confession; it does not make the confession conclusive proof of the other accused person’s guilt.

The provision must therefore be understood alongside the judicial principles governing confessions of co-accused persons.

Essential Conditions Under Section 24 BSA

1. More than one person must be involved in the trial

The provision ordinarily applies when two or more accused persons are being tried jointly.

A confession by one accused person cannot be considered against another under Section 24 merely because both individuals are suspected of participating in the same offence.

The statutory requirement of a joint trial must be satisfied, subject to Explanation II.

2. The accused persons must be jointly tried for the same offence

The provision requires a joint trial for the same offence.

For example, A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. A confesses that A and B committed the murder together. If the remaining statutory requirements are satisfied, Section 24 may apply.

If B is being tried separately and is not jointly tried with A, the confession ordinarily cannot be considered against B under this provision.

The expression “same offence” must be understood in light of the charges and circumstances of the case.

3. A confession must be made by one of the jointly tried accused

The statement must qualify as a confession made by one of the persons being tried.

Not every incriminating statement amounts to a confession. The court must examine the statement’s substance to determine whether it admits guilt or substantially admits the offence.

A statement merely acknowledging presence at a location may not, by itself, amount to a confession.

4. The confession must affect both its maker and another accused

The confession must implicate the person making it as well as another person being jointly tried.

For example, A states, “B and I stole the jewellery from the house.” The statement implicates both A and B.

By contrast, a statement in which A merely accuses B without admitting A’s own participation does not necessarily satisfy the requirement that the confession affect its maker as well as the other accused.

Also Read: Section 25 BSA: Admissions Not Conclusive Proof, but May Estop

5. The confession must be proved

Section 24 applies to a confession that is proved. The court must first consider whether the confession is legally admissible and has been proved in accordance with the applicable rules of evidence.

A confession prohibited under another provision cannot become admissible merely because Section 24 permits consideration of a proved confession against a jointly tried accused.

For instance, the restrictions under Section 23 BSA concerning confessions to police officers and confessions in police custody must be respected.

Evidentiary Value of a Co-Accused’s Confession

One of the most important principles associated with Section 24 is that a confession of a co-accused has limited evidentiary value against another accused.

The Supreme Court has explained that a confession made by a co-accused is not substantive evidence against the other accused in the same way that the confession is evidence against its maker.

1. Confession against its maker

A confession may constitute substantive evidence against the person who made it, provided it is admissible and satisfies the applicable legal requirements.

The court must examine the confession in the context of the case and determine the weight it deserves.

2. Confession against another accused

When the confession implicates another accused being jointly tried for the same offence, Section 24 permits the court to take it into consideration against that person.

However, the confession of a co-accused is not ordinarily sufficient by itself to sustain a conviction against the other accused. The court must consider the independent evidence and the applicable judicial principles.

3. Corroboration and independent evidence

The confession of a co-accused should not ordinarily be treated as the foundation of a conviction against another accused. The court should first examine the independent evidence and determine whether it establishes the other accused’s involvement.

A co-accused’s confession may then be considered as an additional circumstance lending assurance to the conclusion supported by the other evidence.

This principle is particularly important where the prosecution relies on one accused person’s confession to implicate another.

Explanation I: Meaning of “Offence”

Explanation I provides:

“‘Offence’, as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.”

This explanation extends the meaning of “offence” for the purposes of Section 24 to include abetment and attempt.

Abetment

Abetment generally concerns instigating, conspiring in or intentionally aiding the commission of an offence, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

For example, A and B are jointly tried in relation to an offence, and A’s confession implicates A and B in the commission or abetment of that offence. Explanation I makes clear that abetment is included within the expression “offence” for Section 24.

Attempt

Attempt concerns conduct directed towards committing an offence that has progressed beyond mere preparation, as determined by the applicable criminal law.

For example, two accused persons are jointly tried for an attempted offence, and one makes a confession implicating both. The expression “offence” under Section 24 includes an attempt to commit the offence.

Importance of Explanation I

The explanation prevents the application of Section 24 from being restricted only to the completed commission of an offence. It expressly includes abetment and attempt.

Explanation II: Trial in the Absence of an Absconding Accused

Explanation II provides that a trial of more than one person held in the absence of an accused who has absconded or failed to comply with a proclamation issued under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is deemed to be a joint trial for the purposes of Section 24.

This explanation addresses circumstances in which a person cannot be tried in the ordinary manner because they have absconded or failed to comply with the specified proclamation.

Example

A and B are accused of jointly committing an offence. B absconds, and the proceedings against B are conducted in B’s absence in accordance with the applicable law. A is tried in proceedings connected with the same offence.

If the statutory requirements of Explanation II are satisfied, the trial conducted in the absence of the absconding accused is deemed to be a joint trial for Section 24.

The court must still examine the admissibility of the confession and the remaining requirements of the provision.

Importance of Explanation II

The explanation prevents the statutory requirement of a joint trial from automatically defeating the application of Section 24 in the specified circumstances involving an absconding accused.

It does not mean that every separate proceeding involving two accused persons automatically qualifies as a joint trial.

Explanation of the Statutory Illustrations

Illustration (a): A and B jointly tried for murder

A and B are jointly tried for murdering C. A states, “B and I murdered C.”

The confession implicates A as well as B. Because both are jointly tried for the same offence, the court may consider the confession against B under Section 24.

However, the provision does not require the court to convict B solely on the basis of A’s confession. The confession must be considered in accordance with the applicable principles governing evidence of a co-accused.

Illustration (b): B is not jointly tried with A

A is tried for murdering C. There is evidence suggesting that A and B murdered C, and B has stated, “A and I murdered C.”

However, B is not being jointly tried with A.

Also Read: Section 33 BSA: How Much of a Statement Must Be Proved

The statement cannot be taken into consideration against A under Section 24 because the statutory requirement of a joint trial is not satisfied.

Difference between the illustrations

Illustration	Situation	Application of Section 24
(a)	A and B are jointly tried for the same murder, and A confesses to their joint participation	The court may consider A’s confession against B.
(b)	A is tried separately, while B is not jointly tried with A	B’s statement cannot be considered against A under Section 24.

The illustrations demonstrate that joint trial is a central requirement for applying Section 24.

Relevant Case Laws on Confessions of Co-Accused

Section 24 BSA substantially corresponds to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The following Supreme Court decisions interpret the former provision and remain important for understanding the principles underlying Section 24, subject to the current statutory text.

1. Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159

Legal principle: The Supreme Court explained that the confession of a co-accused should not be treated as the foundation of a conviction against another accused. The court should first examine the other evidence and determine whether it establishes the guilt of the accused independently. The co-accused’s confession may then be considered as an additional circumstance lending assurance to the conclusion reached from that evidence.

Relevance to Section 24: This is a leading authority on the limited evidentiary value of a co-accused’s confession. It explains why the statutory permission to consider a confession against another accused does not make the confession equivalent to substantive evidence against that person.

2. Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184

Legal principle: The Supreme Court held that a confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against another accused. Although the court may take the confession into consideration under the applicable provision, it must first assess the other evidence and cannot treat the confession as the foundation of the conviction.

Relevance to Section 24: The judgment clarifies the distinction between evidence that is independently substantive against an accused and a co-accused’s confession that may be considered under the statutory provision. It remains particularly important for understanding the phrase “may take into consideration.”

3. Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165

Legal principle: The Supreme Court reiterated the limited evidentiary value of a co-accused’s confession and the importance of examining the independent evidence against the accused.

Relevance to Section 24: The decision reinforces the principle that a confession implicating another accused cannot ordinarily substitute for reliable evidence establishing that person’s guilt.

Legal clarification: These decisions concern Section 30 of the former Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They are cited for the corresponding judicial principles, not as judgments directly interpreting Section 24 BSA.

Section 24 and Other Relevant BSA Provisions

Section 24 should be read alongside the provisions governing confessions and admissions.

Provision	Subject	Relevance
Section 22	Confession caused by inducement, threat, coercion or promise	Determines when a confession is irrelevant because of specified improper influence.
Section 23	Confession to police officer	Prohibits specified police confessions and restricts confessions made in police custody, subject to the discovery exception.
Section 24	Consideration of proved confession affecting its maker and others jointly under trial	Permits limited consideration of a proved confession against another jointly tried accused.
Section 25	Admissions not conclusive proof, but may estop	Establishes the general rule concerning the conclusive effect of admissions.

Section 24 and Section 23

Section 23 addresses whether specified confessions may be proved at all. Section 24 addresses when a proved confession may be considered against another person being jointly tried for the same offence.

Section 24 cannot be used to bypass the prohibitions under Section 23. The confession must first satisfy the applicable admissibility requirements.

Section 24 and Section 25

Section 25 states that admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, although they may operate as estoppel.

Section 24 addresses the special circumstances in which a confession of one accused may be considered against another jointly tried accused. The limited evidentiary value of a co-accused’s confession must be understood in light of the judicial principles governing this provision.

Corresponding Provision Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The corresponding provision was Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, titled Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.

Both provisions permit a court to consider a proved confession made by one person against another person being jointly tried for the same offence, provided the confession affects both its maker and the other accused.

The BSA retains the original illustration concerning joint trial and the illustration concerning the absence of a joint trial. It also contains two explanations:

• Explanation I expressly includes abetment and attempt within the meaning of an offence.
• Explanation II addresses certain trials conducted 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.

The BSA came into force on 1 July 2024, and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed by Section 170 of the BSA, subject to the applicable savings provisions.

For proceedings governed by the BSA, the correct statutory reference is Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Important Points for Law School and Judiciary Examinations

• Section 24 BSA concerns the consideration of a proved confession affecting its maker and other persons jointly tried for the same offence.
• The corresponding provision under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was Section 30.
• The confession must affect both its maker and another jointly tried accused.
• The expression “may take into consideration” does not make the confession conclusive proof of the other accused’s guilt.
• A confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence against another accused in the same manner as it is against its maker.
• The court should examine the independent evidence before relying on a co-accused’s confession.
• Explanation I includes abetment and attempt within the meaning of an offence.
• Explanation II addresses specified trials conducted in the absence of an absconding accused.
• Illustration (a) demonstrates the application of Section 24 in a joint trial.
• Illustration (b) demonstrates that the confession cannot be considered against an accused who is not being jointly tried with the person making it.
• Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar are leading authorities on the limited evidentiary value of a co-accused’s confession.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023?

Section 24 allows a court to take into consideration a proved confession made by one accused person against another accused person being jointly tried for the same offence, provided the confession affects both the maker and the other accused.

2. Can a co-accused’s confession be used against another accused?

Yes, the court may consider the confession under Section 24 when the statutory conditions are satisfied. However, the confession of a co-accused has limited evidentiary value and should not ordinarily be the foundation of a conviction against another accused.

3. Is the confession of a co-accused substantive evidence?

A confession is substantive evidence against its maker when it is admissible and satisfies the applicable requirements. Against another accused, a co-accused’s confession is treated differently and has limited evidentiary value under Section 24.

4. What is the importance of joint trial under Section 24 BSA?

Joint trial is an essential statutory condition. Ordinarily, the confession cannot be considered against another accused under Section 24 if the person making the confession is not being jointly tried with that accused for the same offence.

Explanation II provides a specific rule for certain trials held in the absence of an absconding accused or an accused who fails to comply with the specified proclamation.

5. What is the significance of the phrase “may take into consideration”?

The phrase gives the court discretion to consider the confession against another jointly tried accused. It does not require the court to accept the confession as true or treat it as conclusive proof of guilt.

6. What is the difference between Section 24 BSA and Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act?

Section 24 BSA substantially reproduces Section 30 of the former Indian Evidence Act. The BSA retains the rule concerning confessions of jointly tried accused persons and includes an additional explanation addressing certain trials held in the absence of an absconding accused.

7. What are the important cases on Section 24 BSA?

Important authorities interpreting the corresponding provision under the former Evidence Act include Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 159; Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184; and Pancho v. State of Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165.

8. Can a person be convicted solely on the basis of a co-accused’s confession?

A co-accused’s confession should not ordinarily be the foundation of a conviction against another accused. The court must examine the independent evidence and apply the principles laid down by the Supreme Court concerning the limited evidentiary value of such confessions.

9. Why is Section 24 important for judiciary examinations?

Section 24 is important because it tests the requirements of a joint trial, the meaning of a confession affecting its maker and another accused, the two explanations, the statutory illustrations and the evidentiary principles established in Kashmira Singh and Haricharan Kurmi.

Conclusion

Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 permits a court to consider a proved confession against another accused person who is jointly tried with the maker for the same offence. The provision is subject to specific statutory requirements and does not make the confession conclusive proof of the other accused’s guilt.

The Supreme Court’s decisions in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar explain the limited evidentiary value of a co-accused’s confession. The court should examine the independent evidence before considering the confession as an additional circumstance against another accused.

For law students and judiciary aspirants, the key is to remember the joint-trial requirement, the two explanations, the statutory illustrations and the distinction between a confession against its maker and its limited use against a co-accused.

dfsad