Confession of a Co-accused (s. 24) — BSA (Law of Evidence) Notes

Confession of a Co-accused (s. 24)

In Kashmira Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1952), a man was sentenced to death almost entirely on the confession of his co-accused, who had named him as the planner of a child’s murder. The Supreme Court set the conviction aside and laid down a rule that has governed ever since: the confession of a co-accused is not evidence in the ordinary sense; it may be thrown into the scale to lend assurance to other evidence, but it can never be the foundation on which a conviction is built. Learn that image — a confession of a co-accused is a make-weight, not a pillar.

Section 24 [IEA s. 30] is a narrow and carefully-limited exception. Normally a confession binds only the person who makes it. Section 24 allows, in one specific situation, a confession by one accused to be taken into consideration against another.

The section applies only when three conditions are all satisfied.

More persons than one are being tried jointly. There must be a joint trial — the maker and the person against whom it is used must be co-accused in the same trial. If the other person is not being tried jointly (he has absconded and been separated, or was acquitted, or is tried later), s. 24 does not apply. (Note the BSA’s Explanation II: a trial held in the absence of an accused who has absconded, or failed to answer a proclamation under BNSS s. 84, is deemed a joint trial for this section — a new clarification.)
They are tried for the same offence. “Offence” here includes the abetment of, or an attempt to commit, that offence (Explanation I).
The confession affects both the maker and the co-accused. It must implicate the maker and the other person more or less equally. A confession that a clever accused drafts to throw all the blame on the other and exonerate himself does not qualify — it must cut against the confessor too.

A. What the court may do with it — and what it may not

This is where all the marks are. Even where the three conditions are met, s. 24 says only that the court may take the confession into consideration against the co-accused. From that carefully-chosen phrase the courts have drawn firm limits.

It is not substantive evidence. A confession of a co-accused is not “evidence” within s. 2(1)(e) at all — it is neither given on oath nor tested by cross-examination. It is, at most, material the court may consider.
A conviction cannot rest on it alone. There must be other evidence pointing to the co-accused’s guilt; the confession may then be used only to lend assurance to that other evidence. If the other evidence is by itself insufficient, the confession cannot be used to fill the gap.
It is the weakest kind of material. Because the maker is trying to shift or share blame and cannot be cross-examined, its worth is low.

So the safe sentence is: the court may take a co-accused’s confession into consideration, but only to support other evidence — it is not substantive evidence and no conviction can rest on it alone.

⚠️ Do NOT treat “B and I murdered C” as proof against B. Because it names B, students write that “the confession proves B’s guilt”. It does not: the court may only take it into consideration alongside independent evidence, and it can never be the sole basis of B’s conviction (Kashmira Singh; Haricharan Kurmi).

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the classic joint-trial problem

Facts. A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said, “B and I murdered C.” Can the court consider this statement against B?

Rule. Under s. 24, where two persons are jointly tried for the same offence, a confession by one affecting himself and the other may be taken into consideration against the other — but only to support other evidence, never as the sole basis of conviction.

Apply. A and B are jointly tried for the same offence (murder of C); A’s confession implicates both A and B. The three conditions are met, so the court may take it into consideration against B. But it is not substantive evidence: there must be independent evidence against B, which the confession may then reinforce.

Conclusion. Yes, the court may consider A’s statement against B — but B cannot be convicted on that statement alone.

Variant. If B were not being tried jointly (say B had absconded and was tried separately), the confession could not be used against B at all — illustration (b) to s. 24.

Section 24, BSA 2023: “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.”

In Simple Terms: If two people are on trial together for the same crime and one of them confesses in a way that blames both himself and the other, the court is allowed to look at that confession against the other person too — but only as extra support for other proof, never as the whole case.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Confession by one accused naming another"]:::root
    ROOT --> Q1{"Jointly tried for the SAME offence?"}
    Q1 -->|"No"| OUT["Cannot be used against the other<br/>(illustration b)"]:::diamond
    Q1 -->|"Yes"| Q2{"Does it affect the MAKER too<br/>(not self-exculpatory)?"}
    Q2 -->|"No"| OUT2["Not within s. 24"]:::diamond
    Q2 -->|"Yes"| TAKE["Court MAY take into consideration<br/>against the co-accused"]:::leaf
    TAKE --> LIMIT["But: NOT substantive evidence;<br/>needs other evidence;<br/>no conviction on it alone"]:::diamond
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef diamond fill:#FDECEA,stroke:#B22222,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Kashmira Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) — a co-accused’s confession is not substantive evidence; it may only lend assurance to other evidence and cannot found a conviction by itself.
Bhuboni Sahu vs The King (1949) — such a confession is “evidence of a very weak type”; it is not tested by cross-examination and cannot be the sole basis of conviction.
Haricharan Kurmi vs State of Bihar (1964) — the court first weighs the other evidence; only if that is by itself enough to convict may the co-accused’s confession be used to lend it further assurance.
Nathu vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1956) — a retracted confession of a co-accused is an even weaker form of evidence and needs strong corroboration.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All BSA (Law of Evidence) topics