BSA Section 27: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated (formerly IEA 33)
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 · in force from 1 July 2024
BSA 27: Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, truth of facts therein stated
From 1 July 2024
Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:
Provided that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine and the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.
Explanation.—A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.
What it replaced in the Evidence Act
BSA 27 ← IEA 33 · Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of facts therein statedChanged
BPR&D's comparison records a change. Read what changed before relying on the old wording.
What changed, per BPR&D: No change except that word "that" is replaced by "and" in proviso.
Printed in both official correspondence tables (BPR&D and NCRB).
Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorized by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable:
Provided –– that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.
Explanation. –– A criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section.
Which one applies
Under section 170(2) of the BSA, an application, trial, inquiry, investigation, proceeding or appeal already pending on 1 July 2024 is dealt with under the Evidence Act; one begun on or after that date, under the BSA.
Read BSA section 170 →Judgments decided under IEA 33
They remain the law on IEA 33. Where the provision changed in the move, read what changed before relying on one for an offence after 1 July 2024.
Sources
- Correspondence Table and Comparison Summary of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Bureau of Police Research & Development, Ministry of Home Affairs, page 3.
- Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: bare Act with Corresponding Section Table, National Crime Records Bureau (Sankalan), page 12.
- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Act 1 of 1872), as amended, India Code, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice.
BPR&D is the Bureau of Police Research & Development (Ministry of Home Affairs); NCRB the National Crime Records Bureau. Their correspondence tables are training aids, not law. This page is general information, not legal advice on any case; the bare Acts as published by the Government of India are the authority.