Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence
IEA 30 (Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence) corresponds most closely to BSA 24, Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence, on a text comparison scoring 95 per cent. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was repealed with effect from 01 Jul 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Repealed · Indian Evidence Act
Section 30 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. ––“Offence” as used in this section, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence.]2 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 force · Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam
Section 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.
Other provisions with similar text
The next closest matches, in order. Where a provision was split or merged, the answer is often more than one of these.
How this table was made, and what it is not
There is no official machine-readable correspondence between the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The Ministry published comparison charts for human readers; nothing exists that a computer can check. So this is not an official mapping and we do not present it as one.
What it measures is how alike the text of two provisions is. For each provision of the old enactment we compare its words against every provision of the new one and report the closest, with the score. That works here because the new codes are largely a renumbering rather than a rewrite: where a provision carried over near-verbatim the match is self-evidencing, and you can see it for yourself, because both texts are set out side by side on every entry.
Where the law genuinely changed, the score falls and the entry says no close match found rather than offering a guess. Those entries matter: they are where the reform actually did something.
Check before you cite. A high score means the words are alike, not that a court has held the provisions equivalent. For that, read both texts and the Gazette.
Full Evidence Act to BSA table
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. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.