Section 204 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (BSA), 2023
⚠️ Important Clarification (Doctrinal Accuracy)
👉 Section 204 does NOT exist in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).
The BSA has fewer than 170 sections and replaces the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
🔹 Section 204 belongs to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (procedural law), not the Evidence Act.
But in many universities and research works, questions wrongly mention “Section 204 BSA” while actually testing the evidentiary principles applied during trials of multiple offences.
👉 Therefore, I will explain Section 204 (BNSS) with strong linkage to evidentiary principles under BSA, and support it with detailed case laws (no links).
Section 204 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(Read with Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)
📘 Textual Meaning of Section 204 (Simplified)
Section 204 allows a single competent court to try:
Multiple offences committed by the same person, or
Multiple persons involved in connected offences,
in one consolidated trial, provided the offences are legally triable together.
🎯 Objective of Section 204
Avoid multiplicity of trials
Prevent contradictory judgments
Ensure holistic appreciation of evidence
Save judicial time and protect accused from harassment
🧠 Connection with Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)
Under BSA:
Sections on relevancy of facts
Sections on facts forming part of the same transaction
Sections on burden of proof
Sections on appreciation of evidence
👉 Section 204 enables joint evaluation of evidence, which is crucial for truth-finding.
DETAILED CASE LAWS (More than Five)
(Explained doctrinally, without external references)
Case 1: State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao
Facts
The accused committed:
Criminal conspiracy
Multiple acts of corruption
Abuse of official position
All acts were committed over a period of time but were inter-connected.
Legal Issue
Can all offences be tried together?
Held
Yes. When offences arise from one continuous scheme, a joint trial is valid.
Relevance to Section 204
Section 204 permits a single court to appreciate entire evidence together, preventing fragmented trials.
Case 2: Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India
Facts
The accused was charged with:
Smuggling
Forgery
False declarations under customs law
Legal Issue
Whether separate trials are mandatory?
Held
No. Where offences are inter-linked, they can be clubbed for trial.
Evidentiary Importance
Evidence proving forgery was also relevant to prove smuggling intention — joint appreciation was essential.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub
Facts
Accused involved in:
Preparation
Attempt
Commission of smuggling offence
Legal Issue
Are preparatory acts separate offences requiring separate trials?
Held
All acts formed one transaction.
Application of Section 204
A single court may try all stages of crime together, ensuring complete evaluation of evidence under BSA.
Case 4: Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody v. State of Bombay
Facts
Accused charged with:
Criminal breach of trust
Falsification of accounts
Cheating
Legal Issue
Whether combining charges prejudices the accused?
Held
No prejudice if offences are part of same transaction.
Significance
Joint trial strengthens logical inference from cumulative evidence, which BSA encourages.
Case 5: State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal
Facts
Accused involved in:
Conspiracy
Multiple fraudulent withdrawals
Forged documents
Legal Issue
Can conspirators be tried together?
Held
Yes. Evidence against one conspirator is often relevant against others.
Relevance
Section 204 allows courts to apply collective evidentiary reasoning, recognized under BSA.
Case 6: Balbir v. State of Haryana
Facts
Series of offences committed during one incident:
Assault
Illegal confinement
Criminal intimidation
Held
All offences constituted one transaction.
Importance
Joint trial avoids artificial separation of evidence, ensuring truth-based adjudication.
📌 Judicial Principles Emerging
Unity of transaction is the key
Evidence must be appreciated holistically
Joint trials are the rule; separate trials are the exception
No prejudice should be caused to the accused
Judicial economy and fairness must coexist
🧾 Academic Conclusion
Although Section 204 is procedurally located in BNSS, its effective application depends heavily on evidentiary principles under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
✔ Joint trials enhance:
Truth discovery
Logical consistency
Evidentiary coherence
✔ Courts consistently uphold Section 204 when:
Offences are interconnected
Evidence overlaps
Justice demands consolidated adjudication
✍️ Exam-Ready Conclusion Line
Section 204 ensures procedural efficiency by permitting joint trials, while the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam enables comprehensive appreciation of evidence, together forming the backbone of fair and effective criminal adjudication.
RELATED Blog
comments