Judgment of acquittal or conviction
Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 deals with judgment of acquittal or conviction. After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case, as soon as possible, within a period of thirty days from the date of completion of arguments, which may be extended to a period of forty-five days for reasons to be recorded in writing. The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
(1) After hearing arguments and points of law (if any), the Judge shall give a judgment in the case, as soon as possible, within a period of thirty days from the date of completion of arguments, which may be extended to a period of forty-five days for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(2) If the accused is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he proceeds in accordance with the provisions of section 401, hear the accused on the questions of sentence, and then pass sentence on him according to law.
Section 258, The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure
CRPC 235 Judgment of acquittal or conviction Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
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.
-
B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case involving rape followed by murder of a defenseless widow, combined with robbery, where the convict is a former police official with a history of seven prior convictions spanning multiple serious crimes, escape from judicial custody, commission of another crime within days of the present crime, and demonstrated lack of reformation potential and future dangerousness to society, the cumulative aggravating circumstances satisfy the 'rarest of rare' test established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and justify capital punishment as the appropriate sentence. The young age of the offender, non-premeditation, or leaving a child victim alive do not constitute sufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh these grave aggravating factors. Furthermore, Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. does not mandate a separate hearing date on sentence if the accused has been adequately heard on the question of sentence by the trial court and appellate courts.
On this section: Requires hearing of accused on question of sentence; Court held separate date not mandatory, but parties must be heard adequately on sentence; violation does not automatically invalidate sentence if parties were heard
-
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph vs State of Maharashtra
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the prosecution has conclusively proved guilt of the accused for offences under Sections 302, 377, and 201 IPC through circumstantial evidence combined with scientifically reliable DNA profiling, and the brutal, grotesque, and diabolical nature of the crime would ordinarily warrant capital punishment in the rarest of rare cases, the court must exercise discretion in sentencing by requiring assessment of rehabilitation and reformation potential before imposing death penalty. Legislative policy under Criminal Procedure Code requires courts to state special reasons for death sentences and carefully examine whether accused would be irreformable menace to society before awarding capital punishment, even in cases of heinous crimes against minors involving sexual abuse and murder.
On this section: Procedures for sentencing after conviction - Referenced to establish that when culpability assumes proportions of depravity, the court must give special reasons for imposing death sentence.
-
Bomb Selvam @ Selvam vs The State of Tamil Nadu State Rep. by Deputy Commissioner of Police
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of the majority opinion (Justice V. Gopala Gowda) is that accomplice evidence, even if the witnesses are not formally designated as accomplices, must be corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence before an accused can be convicted. When the prosecution fails to provide such independent corroboration and the accused has been acquitted of the conspiracy charge, the conviction under abetment cannot be sustained. The burden is on the prosecution to establish the involvement of each accused individually in each offence charged, and mere presence at meetings or involvement in preparatory acts without direct evidence of participation in the crime is insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Acquittal of accused; procedure for acquittal under CrPC
-
State of Punjab vs Prem Sagar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to interfere with sentencing decisions, such interference is warranted only when the High Court commits a serious error in applying sentencing principles. Sentencing for offences affecting public health must be guided by principles of deterrence and proportionality, with consideration of the statutory framework, nature of the offence, factual matrix, and constitutional objectives. Probation benefits cannot be granted merely on grounds of litigation delay or presumed repentance without proper legal reasoning, Probation Officer reports, and assessment of social background. The High Court's failure to apply any discernible sentencing principle in granting probation constituted serious error warranting interference.
On this section: These sections establish the statutory framework for sentencing, laying down principles that courts must consider including sociological backdrop of accused, mental state, and age
-
Balamurugan @ Bala and Anr. Etc vs The State of Tamil Nadu Home Department Deputy Commissioner of Police Cbcid Metro Wing
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The case resulted in divergent opinions. Justice V. Gopala Gowda held that accomplice evidence requires independent corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime, and absent such corroboration, conviction cannot be sustained even if the accomplice evidence is otherwise reliable. Justice Arun Mishra held that accomplice evidence can be relied upon if corroborated by confessional statements of other accused, recovery of articles, and circumstantial evidence, and that acquittal under Section 120-B does not preclude conviction under Section 109 when the ingredients of abetment are satisfied.
On this section: Acquittal of accused; procedure for acquitting accused of specific charges
-
Patel Rameshore Baburao vs The State of Manipur
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused person kills his spouse upon discovering her infidelity, and such discovery causes grave and sudden provocation leading to loss of self-control, the offense falls within Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC. The mental element required is knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, not intention to cause death. The absence of premeditation and the sudden nature of the act in response to grave provocation are significant factors in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence.
On this section: Hearing on sentence; the court addressed whether the trial court erred in not providing a separate hearing on sentence before passing the judgment
-
Nazeema vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the offence of robbery under Section 390 IPC to be established, the prosecution must prove either theft or extortion as a constituent element, and must also prove that the offender caused or attempted to cause hurt, death, wrongful restraint, or fear thereof in the course of committing the theft or extortion. When an accused is acquitted of the constituent offences (theft and administering poison/causing hurt), the derivative offence of robbery cannot be established against the same accused based on the same evidence, as the essential ingredients required for robbery are not proven. Logical consistency requires that if the foundational elements of an offence are not established, the derivative offence built upon those elements cannot be sustained.
On this section: Acquittal of accused. The 2nd accused was acquitted under this section.
-
Government of Gujarat vs MUKESH @ CHITRASEN JAY RAUT
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In NDPS cases, the failure to produce primary evidence (seized samples) in court without a legitimate, documented reason, and non-compliance with the inventory procedures under Section 52A, entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt.
On this section: Procedural rights of the accused and acquittal.
-
State of Odisha vs Laba@kalia Manna
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case of murder based on circumstantial evidence, when the chain of circumstances is complete and unerringly points to the guilt of the accused, conviction can be sustained. However, allegations of sexual assault cannot be inferred from genital injuries alone without scientific corroboration such as semen or DNA evidence. Furthermore, in determining whether death sentence should be imposed, the court must apply the 'rarest of rare' doctrine by balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, with life imprisonment being the rule and death sentence being the exception. Death sentence should be imposed only when there is something uncommon about the crime rendering life imprisonment altogether inadequate, and when there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to mitigating circumstances. In cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the irrevocability of death sentence must be a definite factor at the sentencing stage.
On this section: Bifurcated trial; court discussed legislative policy requiring consideration of circumstances of criminal in addition to crime during sentencing
-
Pushparajan @ Pushpan vs State of Kerala
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is acquitted on grounds of insanity under Section 84 I.P.C., the Sessions Court must comply with Section 335 Cr.P.C. by: (1) Directing detention in safe custody in a mental health centre subject to a relative or friend making an application and volunteering security; (2) Reporting to the Government the action taken under Section 335(1) Cr.P.C.; and (3) Providing a clear pathway for release to a relative or friend willing to offer security under Section 335(3) Cr.P.C. Failure to comply with these procedural requirements renders the detention order defective and subject to quashing by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
On this section: Procedure for acquittal - cited in the original Sessions Court judgment as the basis for acquitting the accused of offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C.
-
State of Maharashtra vs Sushant Suresh Kotkar
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant and the victim themselves, turn hostile and do not support the prosecution case in their testimony, and no other credible evidence is brought on record to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations without supporting evidence from credible witnesses are insufficient for conviction.
On this section: Acquittal - Applied for the acquittal order passed by the court
-
State Inspector of Police, Repalle Ps vs Pallapati Nissi Kumar Alias Boyaz
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases relating to rape, the victim's evidence is crucial and significant. In the absence of credible testimony from the victim corroborating the allegations of sexual assault, the prosecution cannot prove the charge of rape beyond reasonable doubt, even if other circumstantial or medical evidence is available. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and when the victim turns hostile and denies the allegations, the prosecution's case fails for lack of essential evidence.
On this section: Acquittal of accused when prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
-
The State of Maharashtra vs Kisan Surwanshi
Decided under Code of Criminal Procedure 235, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. A school bonafide certificate, being a private document, must be properly proved through the concerned school authority and cannot be relied upon as sole evidence of age without corroborating documentary evidence such as a birth certificate. When the victim's own testimony and that of her parents contradict the prosecution's allegations of kidnapping and sexual assault, and when the victim testifies to a consensual relationship, the prosecution's case fails in the absence of independent corroborating evidence. The burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution to establish each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Acquittal - used in the order to acquit the accused of all charges
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 258
What have the courts held on Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka (03 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under CRPC 235, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Requires hearing of accused on question of sentence; Court held separate date not mandatory, but parties must be heard adequately on sentence; violation does not automatically invalidate sentence if parties were heard. Another 12 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 258 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 258, section 258 BNSS, section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. People searching for it also type bnss 258 1 and bnss 258 2. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 13 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with B. A. Umesh vs Regr. Gen. High Court of Karnataka (03 Oct 2016).
What should I read with Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 401 (Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. It carries forward CrPC 235 (Judgment of acquittal or conviction), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita come into force?
Section 258 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, cited as BNSS 258, 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 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.