​KembaraXtra – Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – Consideration of Proved Confession Affecting Person Making It and Others Jointly Under Trial for the Same Offence [Section 24 BSA / Section 30 IEA]

Introduction
​Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 corresponds to Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Both provisions deal with the evidentiary value of a confession made by one accused person that affects not only himself but also other persons jointly tried for the same offence.
The provision permits the Court to take into consideration a confession made by one accused against co-accused when certain conditions are fulfilled. However, such confession is not substantive evidence against the co-accused and can only be used as an additional circumstance supporting other evidence on record.
While the basic principle remains unchanged, the BSA introduces an important clarification through Explanation II, particularly regarding absconding accused persons.

Meaning of the Provision
Section 24 provides that where:

• More persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence; and
• A confession made by one of such persons affects both himself and the other accused,

the Court may take that confession into consideration against:

• The maker of the confession, and
• The co-accused jointly tried with him.

Essential Conditions for Applicability
For Section 24 to apply, the following conditions must be satisfied:
1. Joint TrialThere must be:

• More than one accused person; and
• They must be jointly tried.

2. Confession Must Be ProvedThe confession must be:

• Legally admissible,
• Properly proved before the Court.

3. Confession Must Affect Both Maker and Co-Accused
The confession should:

• Implicate the maker himself; and
• Also implicate one or more co-accused.

A confession solely against another person without self-implication would not ordinarily fall within this provision.

Nature of Evidence
A confession of a co-accused is:

• Not substantive evidence;
• Not equivalent to testimony of a witness;
• Not sufficient by itself to convict a co-accused.

It may only be used:

• To lend assurance to other evidence already on record.

Thus, conviction cannot ordinarily be based solely upon the confession of a co-accused.

Important Change under the BSA
Insertion of Explanation IIA significant addition under Section 24 BSA is Explanation II, which provides:
A trial of more persons than one held in the absence of an accused who has absconded or who fails to comply with a proclamation issued under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be deemed to be a joint trial for the purposes of this section.

Effect of Explanation II
The explanation broadens the concept of "joint trial."
Previously, difficulties arose where:

• One accused absconded,
• Proceedings continued against remaining accused persons.

The question often arose whether the trial could still be treated as a joint trial for the purpose of considering a confession.
The BSA resolves this issue by expressly providing that:

• Even if an accused absconds,
• Or fails to comply with a proclamation,

the proceeding shall still be treated as a joint trial for the purposes of Section 24.

Purpose of the Amendment
The amendment seeks to:

• Prevent accused persons from escaping evidentiary consequences by absconding;
• Remove procedural ambiguities;
• Facilitate effective criminal trials;
• Strengthen administration of criminal justice.

Difference between Section 24 BSA and Section 30 IEA
Section 24 BSA

• Retains the traditional rule regarding confessions of co-accused.
• Drafting is more streamlined and clearer.
• Introduces Explanation II regarding absconding accused persons.
• Expands the concept of joint trial.

Section 30 IEA

• Contained the same substantive rule.
• Did not expressly deal with absconding accused persons.
• No equivalent of Explanation II.

Illustration
Suppose A, B, and C are accused of committing robbery.
A makes a confession stating:
“B and I committed the robbery together.”
If A, B, and C are jointly tried:

• The Court may consider A's confession against B.
• However, B cannot be convicted solely on the basis of A's confession.
• Independent corroborative evidence is required.

Even if C absconds and proceedings continue against A and B, the trial may still be deemed a joint trial under Explanation II.

Important Points 

• Section 24 BSA corresponds to Section 30 IEA.
• Deals with confession of a co-accused.
• Confession may be considered against:
  • Maker of confession,
  • Co-accused jointly tried.
• Confession is not substantive evidence.
• Cannot alone form basis of conviction.
• Requires corroboration.
• Explanation II is a new addition.
• Trial continues to be treated as joint trial even if an accused absconds or ignores proclamation under BNSS.

Conclusion
Section 24 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 preserves the long-standing principle that a proved confession of one accused may be considered against co-accused jointly tried for the same offence. While the substantive law remains largely unchanged from Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the introduction of Explanation II significantly clarifies the position regarding absconding accused persons. This amendment strengthens criminal procedure, removes ambiguity, and ensures that the evidentiary value of confessions is not undermined by procedural complications arising from non-appearance of accused persons.