Evidence for prosecution
Section 254 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with evidence for prosecution. On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution: Provided that evidence of a witness under this sub-section may be recorded by audio-video electronic means. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution:
Provided that evidence of a witness under this sub-section may be recorded by audio-video electronic means.
(2) The deposition of evidence of any public servant may be taken through audio-video electronic means.
(3) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination.
Section 254, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 231 Evidence for prosecution Text carried over almost unchanged 90%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
State of Haryana vs Ram Mehar and OTHERS Etc Etc
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 231, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The power to recall and re-examine witnesses under Section 311 Code of Criminal Procedure, despite its broad language permitting exercise at any stage of trial, cannot be exercised merely on the ground that defense counsel was ill or inadvertently failed to put certain questions to witnesses. The exercise of such power must be justified by established legal principles requiring that the evidence appears essential to just decision of the case, and must serve the ends of justice by discovering truth and obtaining proper proof of facts. Mere illness of counsel or subsequent discovery of inadvertent omissions in cross-examination by a changed counsel do not constitute valid grounds for recall when substantial trial has proceeded, accused have had multiple opportunities to defend, and no showing is made that justice has been denied. The concept of fair trial, while fundamental to Article 21, must be balanced against the interests of victims and society, and cannot be stretched to such extent that it mortgages the systemic order of conducting trials per the Code of Criminal Procedure or permits abuse of process in the name of fairness.
On this section: Mentioned alongside Section 311 in trial court's rejection of petition for recall of witnesses
-
Surender Singh vs State (NCT Of Delhi)
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 231, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused pleads self-defence under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish the plea by credible evidence. The burden, though not as onerous as beyond reasonable doubt, requires some degree of reasonable satisfaction. In the absence of credible evidence supporting the plea of self-defence, the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Similarly, the plea of grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC requires that the provocation be such as would temporarily deprive a reasonable person of self-control. The test is whether a reasonable man belonging to the same class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose self-control. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from provocation and not after passion had cooled down. In the present case, the overwhelming eyewitness testimony of four police personnel, corroborated by forensic evidence, establishes that the appellant deliberately and intentionally killed the deceased out of jealousy and motive, not in self-defence or under grave provocation. Therefore, the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC is upheld.
On this section: Cross-examination deferral - the court discussed the proper procedure for deferring cross-examination and emphasized that such deferral should only be granted in exceptional cases with recorded reasons
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 254
What have the courts held on Section 254 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
State of Haryana vs Ram Mehar and OTHERS Etc Etc (24 Aug 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 231, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Mentioned alongside Section 311 in trial court's rejection of petition for recall of witnesses. Another 1 judgment on this section is set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2012 to 2016.
How do I find court cases under Section 254 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNSS 254, section 254 BNSS, section 254 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 2 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Haryana vs Ram Mehar and OTHERS Etc Etc (24 Aug 2016).
What should I read with Section 254 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward CrPC 231 (Evidence for prosecution), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 254 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 254 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 254, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 359. Compounding of offences1355 words
- 187. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours1122 words
- 2. Definitions956 words
- 243. Trial for more than one offence930 words
- 35. When police may arrest without warrant881 words
- 480. When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence823 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.